Slashdot Mirror
Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support
Corrupt writes "I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep."
Man, you got more issues then you can even imagine.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.
With both congress and the president's approval rating hovering at below 20%, it is clear that the will of the people is not being represented. The only plausible explanation for FISA is that it is intended an means for the executive branch to seize an even greater imbalance of power, and/or to cover up widespread criminal activity that took place in the last eight years.
Yesterday?
When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.
Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/10/MN3H11ME7C.DTL
As his campaign manager said:
Sen. Obama has said before that the compromise bill is not perfect. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Sen. Obama chose to support the FISA compromise."
Opponents, including Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued that a legal exemption is at best premature, because details of the wiretapping program are not yet fully known. But a Dodd amendment that would have stripped out the immunity title received just 32 votes, all of them from Democrats, including Obama, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt.
not to be in the US. What's it gonna take guys? When you just going to leave, or revolt, or something? You think your votes are actually counted? What about all those scandals with the electronic voting mechanisms? And the Florida scandals? GTFO.
dammit taco. use the "politics" section!
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/obama-fisafaith-iran/
That's why we always vote for Lesser Evil, not the Greater Good.
I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep
Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.
That probably goes for any letter, but those two in particular.
FTFA: "Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to."
Thanks for propping up the good ol' two-party system there with your thinking, ma'am. Seriously, there are other bloody candidates out there, and if you don't think you should vote for Obama or McCain, then vote for one of them! It really gets tiring listening to the thinking exhibited by most people, which locks us into the hellhole of a political party system we have.
Change starts with you, and all that.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
the greater of two evils starts winning. If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.
The guy seriously fudged the bucket with me. I actually had some amount of faith in this dude.
This was the big test to see if he would collapse under the pressure of the telecoms. More money was offered so he decided to go with it.
I am very upset over this but I should not be surprised. He is just another politician. (But lesser of the two evils)
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
...themselves [above] politics...
Dur. I hold myself above grammar.
it had to be said...
You'll be able to take your mind off it with the time you invest in learning Spanish with all our kids. You didn't need your laws in English, right?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Senator Obama: Because of the miserable failure that George W Bush has been, I have been placing the candidates for this presidential election under strict scrutiny. Until yesterday, I was proud to tell my friends that I supported Barack Obama for President of the United States. Now, I fear that my interests and your interests are not aligned and I can no longer lend you my support. Yesterday, while you did vote for the Dodd amendment, you failed to support a filibuster, and you failed to vote against the revised FISA bill that does for the telecom companies who have implemented surveillance against the American people what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. Being President of the United States means sometimes taking an unpopular stance on an issue despite the outcry of the public. It sometimes means thinking in the long term instead of the short, 24-hour sound-bite news cycle. What you have done today is embolden the elements of the government that tapped Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and handed them a fresh set of excuses to listen to the phone calls and Internet traffic of the American people. Maybe things work differently in Washington. Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the president have sworn to Representatives and Senators not to listen to their calls. Maybe the Republicans have sworn to the Democrats not to sabotage them like in the '70s during Watergate. Out in America, away from the halls of power, what protection does the citizen have against those who would gladly violate their expectation of privacy? Might I remind you that the president that suggested this bill also lied to start a war, approved the torture of innocent civilians, and believes himself to be above the law. What you did today was sell The People down the river for political capital. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am not proud of you. You are no different than any other politician, using the politics of fear to get what you want. The only sort of Hope you offer is False Hope - the worst kind because by the time it is identified as such, it is too late. A humble citizen, MasterOfMagic (I put my actual name, but I'm not going to post it here)
he ran left for the primaries and is moving center for the general election. sounds like a plan to me.
so his message to all of you who think that obama realy embraced the ideals of moveon.org and the daily kos is "thanx for hitch - I'll call you when i get to washington"
or better "so long and thanks for all the fish"
better luck next time.
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
In Swedish FISA means to Fart...
D. vs R. They are two sides of the same coin. They are both only out to gain power and screw the people they are supposed to service.
I'm tiered of seeing this crap all day on TV. Now I get to get it in my face on a TECHNOLOGY site.
I have to return some videotapes...
It went to the ACLU instead.
I've left the Democratic Party and I won't vote for Obama any longer. Both parties are completely irresponsible and don't deserve any support. Further, I'd support general strikes and mass protests to demand our supposed "inalienable rights" back. They've been alienated from me, a citizen, and I'm pissed off about that.
By signing this open letter: Open letter on getfisaright
The group that's doing it is pretty cool. Just a bunch of folks who self-organized on Obama's own social networking site.
It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.
I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?
Who supported Dr. Ron Paul and came to the conclusion that I would vote for Obama because I believed he would change the world's opinion of the United States.
However, after his vote on FISA, I have decided to throw my vote to Bob Barr, whereas I was previously planning on voting for Obama.
I hope others who were planning on voting for Obama decide to do the same.
The political culture in this country scares me, and I am very afraid of where we are headed. It is a shame to see the Constitution mocked like this. The only hope I have left is in the judicial system which I hope has the balls to stand up to the power grab and strike it down as unconstitutional.
If I can not smoke in heaven, then I shall not go. -- Mark Twain
This doesn't belong on Slashdot.
That aside, how many times can the nutty article use the word 'progressive'? Can anybody define progressive? It seems to be a euphemism for 'European'.
For me at least, change starts with Bob Barr.
Four years ago I saw an interview with Feingold, the democrat from Wisconsin. I thought he would be the one running this election, and now I wish he were.
[eof]
. . .when he explained American Politics this way:
"I believe the puppet on the left shares my beliefs. . .oh, I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking. Holy shit! The same guy is controlling both puppets! *sound of gunshot and Bill collapses^
There's only one solution at this point. We need to take back control of the government and give it back to the people. Excuse me, but I have to go now. . .the Office of Fatherland Insecurity is kicking in my door. Gotta go. . .
Come again?
Tool in a war on what?
You do realize that there is a greater chance in wining a war on chocolate than "terror"?
You know... all that stuff about one being an actual physical thing and other being an idea.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
FISA? What is this? TFA only mentions it by the acronym and doesn't even descrive it. As a non-American, I'd like to know just what the fuss is about without being pummeled by a senseless acronym.
Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support
Let's be realistic here. How many of Obama's voters (outside of the Slashdot and conspiracy theorist crowds) even know about this bill, yet alone know how Obama voted on it?
There are some rumors out there that say that because this bill doesn't provide immunity from criminal charges, Obama is actually planning on going after the the administration and the telecoms after he gets into office. Of course, that's not much of a guarantee at this point...
McCain didn't vote for FISA. That's because he didn't vote at all (98 Senators did). Worse record than Ted Kennedy this year, brain tumor and all.
Doesn't mean I like McCain, but I fully expect him to say "But I didn't vote for FISA" some time in the next few months.
...I voted for Kodos.
...If everyone voted for greater of two evils at least they would vote honestly.
So when the amount of evil finally calls for a revolution there will at least be some honesty left in the people of the land.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.
My preference going into this whole (ungawdly long) campaign was for Dennis Kucinic - check out his platform and I think you might see there are rare instances of someone progressive making a go of it. (One could argue that he was never a "viable" candidate, and one may well be right, but he got a lot further than I would have expected.)
After Kucinic, my horse of choice was Edwards for a somewhat-distant second. Once he bowed out, I just crossed my fingers and hoped that Obama wouldn't become a candidate I couldn't stomach. He's doing a bang-up job of running in that direction, sadly, so I guess it's time to vote Green Party yet again.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
The problem we have is that both Obama and McCain (and Hillary when she was running) are only really passionate about one thing: Being President.
They appear have a few principles which they vaguely care about, but both politicians have made incredible compromises (and in many cases from positions I don't like to positions I do support, which actually infuriates me) in their bid for the top post.
They don't have something they're passionate about that they need to be president for, and they've made so many contradictory promises that neither will have a mandate, even in the unlikely event that these very similar fellows will actually have election results that is statistically differentiable from a hundred million or so coin-flips.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The conspiracy theorist in me noticed the timing of Jesse Jackson's comments about Obama. I'm wondering if it's an attempt to obscure Obama's vote in the media. Bill Clinton was accused of doing the same thing with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Kosovo. I noticed the Jesse Jackson comment has gotten much more main stream press than Obama's vote.
(takes tinfoil hat off)
I'm still voting for Obama though. Stupid two party system.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I don't understand the hatred toward the FISA bill. From what I understand it has almost nothing to do with DOMESTIC spying... only with the approval process for eavesdropping overseas.
I have talked to a few in government at a security conference who I am pretty sure do such things (mostly about the technicals about the process) and they are so paranoid about capturing anything from Americans its crazy...
Has anybody EVER suffered any type of damage from this type of alleged activity?
Flame on!!
The rest of those things don't bother me much at all. I don't expect to share that many viewpoints with anyone, to me those are all small potato personal value judgements that people can reasonably disagree about.
The FISA bill is what is really disappointing. It's amazing how overnight it's completely destroyed my opinion of Obama. When is a politician going to have the courage to stand up and point out the simple absurdity of shredding our own constitution, trampling human rights, and sparing no legislation to cover our own asses to fight a threat that is statistically insignificant? The terrorists must just be laughing in their caves right now. Are we such pussies in America that we can't rely on real intelligence and police work to fight terrorists?
This isn't a partisan issue at all, it's the absolute insanity of our times. Obama really sounded like he understood that, then he turns around does the exact opposite. It's not about flip-flopping per se, it's about pretending to know what the biggest, scariest, most obvious problem is in this country, then turning around and pandering to bamboozled middle america huddled in fear thanks to 7 years of fear-mongering by an incompetent who was just trying to muddle through a job that was way wayyy beyond him. If Obama had stuck to his guns (if he even understood the point of what he was saying), he could have used the bully pulpit to bring rationality back to America ala "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Unfortunately now his rhetoric has become hollow. I still think he may redeem himself as president, but his most powerful tool, his voice, is now castrated.
He certainly lost mine.
I mean, if he's going to sell us down the river now, what's the point of voting for him? The only reason this bill "needed to be passed, flawed as it was" was that it provided cover for the Bush administration and their corporate co-conspirators.
There was nothing stopping them from simply getting warrants to continue their "vital national security monitoring of US citizens except the fact that they pee in their pants at the thought of having to tell a judge what they have been doing. The old law would have permitted them to do everything they needed to do, and only would have stopped them from doing things that were gross abuses of power, criminal, treasonous, and so forth.
And yet they'll eat their own rather than let the facts of what they've been doing come to light.
So Obama decided to give 'em a break on this one.
Screw him, I say.
--MarkusQ
He certainly lost my support. While all the aye votes deserve contempt, Obama as the democratic candidate could have thrown his weight into it and stopped it. As much as one person can bear responsibility I blame him for not doing his damn job.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I am not too worried about the telecom immunity provision. What would have been the point of suing the telecom companies? The lawyers would have made most of the money anyway. It's not like you would have gotten any cash out of it.
And take a look at the alternative. The alternative is that someone does sue and a case gets heard. Then a jury (or, probably on appeal, a few judges) gets to decide whether or not the President has the authority to make this kind of order during "war time" (in quotes because whether we're at war is hotly disputed). What if it comes out the "wrong" way? What if the courts decide the President has that authority?
By passing the immunity provision, Congress is essentially saying that we're not going to worry about whether the President didn't have the authority. We're just going to give a pass this time.
Sometimes a pass is better than a decision (especially when the downside of a bad decision is too high and the upside is almost meaningless).
Ralph Nader - votenader.org
I'm voting for Obama. McCain is incredibly awful, and Obama overall looks pretty good - based on his past actions, and his public understanding of some of the solutions we need.
But I'm not that enthusiastic anymore. This FISA surrender is a terrible blow to his credibility in every way. On an essential issue about the Constitution, fighting Bush, keeping his word, leading, privacy, the rule of law. If Obama had done this one right, he'd have proved he can lead us out of the deep mess we're in. Instead, he looks like he's part of the problem - and certainly not part of the solution.
McCain, of course, is also completely in love with the new FISA that spits in the Constitution's eye. And McCain is salivating for so much more of Bush/Cheney's tyrannical powers. And he and his lobbyist advisors are even more clueless than the first round of corporate overlords under Bush/Cheney that they'll waste even more of America as they slice away for their cronies the power and money their offices will give them.
So McCain is unacceptable. I'm enthusiastic about him losing. And voting is not optional: it's an obligation to make a choice, some choice, after learning what the candidates are likely to do once elected. So the choice between McCain and Obama is clearly Obama, who must then get my vote. But I don't have to be happy about it. I don't have to send Obama money. I don't have to sign petitions demanding fair treatment by the media. I don't have to go to Obama rallies or other PR stunts.
If Obama's candidacy were to actually look like it might fail, and McCain might win, then I would send Obama money and do more legwork to get him elected. Because the choice is indeed that important. But I don't have to be happy about it. How can I remain inspired, hopeful, when Obama has raised my expectations, and then smashed them? I've got a sense of proportion, so I know FISA isn't the only issue (though it's important), and that McCain is worse on FISA and everything else. But there were a few hopeful months when Obama was doing FISA different, and now I'm back to the usual disgusted trip to the voting booth.
It's like taking out the trash, instead of going to the video store. Gotta do it, not going to get any dirtier than I must, won't be getting much laughs out of the trip, but I'm holding my nose.
--
make install -not war
Politics is ruled way too much by practicality such as yours. We need a return to idealism. It would actually help.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's like somebody lent the guy one of those self help books, but the title is, "How To Be A Dick", and he's turning it into his own personal Bible. Doesn't Obama understand that he gets a huge amount of his support from people who just didn't give a crap about politics before, and who will vanish like smoke if he turns into the same old thing with a pretty face painted on it?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If he opposes it, there will just be 9 million attack ads about how he "supports terrorism" and he'll lose. The best strategy is to support it to win the election, and then strike it down first day in office. That's why being in politics is a crappy job... you have to support things you don't want to in order to get the job, and then when you finally have the power to fix everything, your electorate is confused as to why you're "changing".
stuff |
Whoever wins, we lose.
Tell him so.
Can you explain to me what Hillary Clinton has to do with this?
Especially since she, apparently, voted against the bill.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
The democratic republic SYSTEM insures two-party status. There's simply no way for a third party to have any really meaningful impact besides voter dilution. Now, if you were to switch to a constitutionnal monarchy like Canada or a true democracy then you could have more than 2 parties, coalitions, all that jazz. As it stands, the POTUS represents one party and everybody is either in his party or against it.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Why do you think I compared the unwinnable war to a war on chocolate?
You can't beat chocolate... with its sweetness and bitterness and soft velvety touch on your tongue...
Hey! Maybe... if the US started carpet bombing Iraq and Afghanistan with chocolate...?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I don't understand the hatred toward the FISA bill. From what I understand it has almost nothing to do with DOMESTIC spying... only with the approval process for eavesdropping overseas.
I have talked to a few in government at a security conference who I am pretty sure do such things (mostly about the technicals about the process) and they are so paranoid about capturing anything from Americans its crazy...
Has anybody EVER suffered any type of damage from this type of alleged activity?
Flame on for an un-popular opinion..
Don't let the desire for change overwhelm the need to just call a spade a spade.
Ooooh what a giveaway...
Precious Roy says: "Suckers!"
Precious Roy, Precious Roy!
Makin' lots of suckers out of girls and boys!
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92383786%5Bnpr.org%5D
The problem is that Obama depicts himself as different from all other politicians, that he claimed he would support a filibuster over telecom immunity, and that he voted to cut off filibuster.
He flat out reneged on an important promise, apparently because he wanted to "move to the center", "accept the compromise (sic)", and "appear tough on terrorism".
All he really did was show that he is just another ethically challenged politician.
Infuriate left and right
I watched an interview with him where he unequivocally said he would not run for President. Guess what? Probably not his first big lie.
That's like a Democrat proclaiming no self-respecting conservative Republican could ever vote for John McCain because he's abandoned everything conservatives stand for.
Fact #1: Obama is new hotness.
Fact #2: McCain is the old war horse in the park that pigeons poop on.
So lighten up. Nobody cares about Fisa except a few alleged "Slashdot voters" (if there is such a thing) who couldn't fill Wrigley Field on free caps day.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
The last time it even appeared we had a viable alternative was Perot; but he failed to pick a proper running mate ("why am I here?" --Stockton). Ultimately, his campaign collapsed but he still got 20% of the vote. The People are that desperate for REAL change. Give me a viable 3rd party--a new Bull Moose, and I might just vote for it. I'm done voting for people simply out of protest. I don't just want an alternative. I want an alternative backed by an effective organization. It's not impossible. Our history shows that. It's just difficult.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Frankly, I don't really don't care that much that the telecoms get off the hook in this instance. Yes, it's a bad precedent, but it's far from the biggest problem here. It's part of a pattern that is far more worrying.
The biggest problem is that the FISA amendments allow the government to destroy surveillance records, or not to keep them in the first place. What possible legitimate purpose could that serve? The telecom thing isn't there to protect the telecoms, it's there to make it impossible for private individuals to determine the scope of the government's intrusion via discovery. Likewise, the amendment prevents states from investigating crimes committed against their citizens.
Clearly, the biggest practical effect of these amendments is to allow the executive branch to engage in criminal activities and obstruct any effort, private or public, to determine the extent of those crimes.
This is not a "liberal" issue. Concealing and destroying evidence shows this is not an argument about the extent to which the President is bound by one law or another, but whether he can exceed his constitutional powers with impunity and then escape accountability. This transcends liberal/conservative divide over the President's "inherent powers", because whatever you think the scope of the President's powers should be, this allows him to exceed that scope.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
McCain likely has 10-15 states because he is conservative, older, and his opponent is not white. Obama might have 5-10. Therefore Oboma has to reassure the people by making them aware that he was born inside the contiguous united states, in fact the heartland, unlike his opponent, and he will not shake things up too much.
Which means allowing this miserable fiasco to continue, at least for a while, and not waste too much time looking back. The republicans can waste billions of dollars on impeachments, et al, beacause they have the support of the people who live on beliefs, not facts. And this is where the issue is.
George Bush was elected on a platform of Christianity, that he had been saved by the power of Jesus. People trust him. He is not too smart, and, like the populous, often works from beliefs rather than facts. So he was elected instead of Gore, who is more of a let's explore the possibilities type of guy, even if the possibilities do not come to fruition, it was fun talking about them. But that is too complex and too easy to attack. In any case, many people trust Bush and think that anything he does is ok.
More importantly, many people believe that foreign terrorists are the danger, or at least non-christrian terrorist, and specifically every Mosque in the world is base for attack on the US, which makes Mosques on US soil an issue. Many people trust Bush to do anything to fight against these threats, and protect the American Way of Life. In fact, the only reason Bush is having trouble now is that he has failed to protect our way of life, we are now forced to buy small cars, and the weak dollar means that we can no longer be so arrogant. But that does not mean Bush is not the most moral man in the country, and what he does comes from a good place.
So Obama voted for an act that in the scheme of things is probably no worse that anything else Bush has done in his best effort to end the traditional transparency and public responsibility that should characterize a democratically elected government. He did this as insurance against a Bush style ad in which is is implied that black men should be kept in prison indefinitely, because giving them a second chance at rehabilitation is too dangerous. He did this as insurance against the late Jesse Helms type ad, in which it is implied that if a black man has power, no white will be able to get a job.
At the end of the day Obama is unlikely to be any more or less moral than any other president. I like him because, unlike many in the US, I like to have leaders who are intelligent and can think and articulate their own thoughts so the rest of the world does not think we are all uneducated bigoted red necks who run to our churches at the first sign of trouble, or at least to our guns.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,
You can still write in Dr. Paul as a protest to the modern police state that Obama and his neo-con/Saudi/Al-qaeda minders want in the United States.
Yesterday, presumptive US Presidential candidate Barak Obama became irate when he was denied additional packages of honey-roasted peanuts on a US domestic flight the result of, according to airline officials, monetary constraints prompted by recent fuel price increases.
After considerable ranting, flight attendants gave additional packages of snacks to Obama over the protests of fellow passengers who had also been denied additional snacks.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson, when asked what he would have done in this instance, said he would have "cut his nuts off."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...On the same day he voted for the bill that would strip immunity from the bill (which by the way hardly changes the system already in place.)
So more politically simplistic people pointing a finger. Get the whole story before piling on.
Those who listen to progressive/liberal discussion will have heard the two part speculation on this; A) that the demonstrated right wing spying on the democrats pre-911 may have dug up things they have been using to create such a pacified democratic majority and/or B) the democrats, obama included, think this bill is such an obvious and blatant violation of the constitution that its guaranteed to be struck down by the supreme court. The latter, to me, seems odd, though... they could just plain vote no and say so. It's maddening no matter what, though.
I wasent going to vote, sadly as an independent voter I would normaly think my choise dosent count. However this situation has become so bad that Ill vote aginst the D and R just to show them how weak there situation is. Writein for Ron Paul?
If it gets much worse im going to Canada.
It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists
I think death penalty for child rapists is a little harsh. I mean, if they are a child, they don't know that rape is wrong... What next, life in prison for child arsonists?
hmm? what? oh... nevermind!
On the other hand, at least someone is thinking of the children...
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Senator Obama:
When I first heard you speak, I was moved, literally. Very few people who speak give me chills, and you were one of them. Later, I was excited to attend your speech at Joe Luis Arena when you came to Detroit--not only excited to hear you speak in person, but excited to be a part of something big and meaningful. Though I am still young and have only been following politics for the past eight awful years, I felt honored to be able to finally support a politician who seemed different from any other.
I'm now several months removed from the first time I heard you speak and a few weeks past the night I attended your speech in Detroit. I'm writing to you five days after Independence Day, and only a few hours after you voted for the FISA Amendment Act. Simply put, I feel cheated, and I know I'm only one of tens of thousands of supporters who feel the same way. It's one thing for the majority of the Senate to pass this legislation, it's another for someone who you thought was different to vote for it. That's the biggest slap in the face.
In light of your vote, I'm no longer excited about your stake for presidency. I thought that we might be on a path to something new, something better. But your vote tells a different story, and that's not change that I can believe in. It's simply more of the same.
Thank you for your time.
This blatant political whining has no place on Slashdot where we should be discussing issues logically, not emotionally. Why the moderators even allowed it through is beyond me at the moment. This is certinly hard news for nerds, and certainly not stuff that matters to anyone smart enough to see through Obama's empty promises at the get go. Change simply for the sake of change is a truly bad idea.
Remember that if McCain is the 3rd term of George W. Bush, Obama would be the 2nd term of Jimmy Carter.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I would just like to remind you that Obama at his worst is still better than McCain at his best. McCain has bad policies, that is, when he can remember what his policies are for the given day. And if somebody doesn't like his policies McCain is willing to lie about ever having that policy.
Obama, by no means, is no perfect candidate and he is indeed on his worst performance here, completely out of touch with his base. This is still just one of many issues facing USA, and in all the rest, McCain is still not any better. Still, it is quite disappointing but what can you do other change the stupid two-party system (which will never happen as long as those two parties are in power...).
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
The For Sale and the Sold.
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)
Why not vote against it?
Why not punish the people who draft bills that are too broad in scope or have insane riders on them and let them know that if they want laws passed they should learn to be concise? Or how about actually standing up for their constituents?
What the hell is wrong with the government working for the people it's supposed to represent for a freaking change?
Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity; there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets.
WRONG. Yes there is. How about voting your conscience rather than rolling over and taking it up the tailpipe? This is supposed to be a leadership value?
Please don't think I'm a Republican when I type this, but if this is Obama's idea of "Change" - well, it looks like the same old same old to me.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Kind of like voting for a war ... and then opposing it.
The time for thoughtful consideration is BEFORE the damage is done.
Words are cheap.
I was going to vote for you. I was willing to accept what you said was probably mostly true. You seemed like a change.
You are just another politician who doesn't give a shit about anything but power.
"Faith Based" initiatives do not belong in a nation that values separation of church and state.
Warrentless wiretapping does not belong in a country that has the 4th amendment.
Sorry, but you suck, but it just looks like 4 years of Barrack McCain Bush and the beginning of the 100 years war of resources, collapse of freedom and science, and the end of the dream of the founding fathers. Fuck you.
The U.S.A. is lost. We may have defeated the Nazis, but the fascists won WWII. I pity my children.
The Freedom Law: The likelihood of someone mentioning Ron Paul is directly proportional to the length of any discussion involving freedom, fascism or politicians.
There is no compromise when it comes to the Constitution.
I consider a yes vote yesterday as a act of treason against our nation. I would not
vote for him no more than I would vote for John Anthony Walker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker.
Got Code?
"After consulting with the generals..."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Unfortunately the ineffable American political system has only given us Obama and McCain to choose between, so this is not a question about getting the optimal president, but one of getting a president that doesn't stagger too much when he's chewing gum, and doesn't drool or fart every time he's on camera.
So which one would you rather not see as president? That is the real question, sad though it is. That's all the democracy you get for your money.
Rush Limbaugh has a brand new $400 million contract, and is surfing the Daily KOS and DemocraticUnderground laughing his ass off right now.
how are you going to lead the country?
Leaders do NOT compromise their core values.
Anything that they DO compromise on is NOT a core value for them.
Obama "compromised" on the 4th Amendment, his previous statements and telecom immunity with that vote.
Why? Did he suddenly start believing the opposite of what he believed before?
No, he did it because he thought that preemptive capitulation would make him look "strong".
He cravenly caved to a lame duck President.
I sent this to Obama last night...absolutely disgusted.
Your message says change yet your vote on the FISA bill says more of the same corruption. You could have rallied democrats to not let the bill through with the retroactive immunity, yet you have actively helped Mr. Bush and his cronies cover up their illegal activities. Anybody else would have gone to jail for what these criminals have done yet apparently all men are not created equal in the eyes of Barack Obama. You have actively betrayed the privacy and trust of the American people.
So what am I really supposed to believe you were trying to accomplish by voting this way? Do you really believe that these companies and the administration are above the law and deserve to be allowed to do whatever they want? Or are you just doing whatever you think will get you the most votes in the election which ironically happens to be a polar opposite from your stated message (at least the one on the front page of your website). Either and both of these reasons are enough for you to have lost my vote. I am not sure what is worse, the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush stressing the importance of the FISA bill for national security and then vetoing anything that doesn't cover himself and his cronies, or your recent complete betrayal.
Before today, I absolutely endorsed and loved your message of change. I thought finally, we will have a president who might actually do something about global warming. What an amazing thing it would have been to have a president who actually wanted to fix the country. It is sad that once again this remains only a dream.
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -Obama spokesman Bill Burton, oct 07
He wont lose any significant support, since nobody knows what FISA is anyways. Sally Soccermom wants Change, and knows that The Iraq is evil, and Obama is more attractive than McCain, so he'll win.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I think it has just begun. If you donated to Obama, ask for you campaign contribution back so you can donate it to the ACLU. If Obama is not going to represent people, then give your money to someone that will.
There is nothing "centerist", "left", or "right" about the establishment of the stasi in the USA.
By the way, I grew up "centerist", and stayed "centerist", which means, thanks to fox news, i'm "OMGGODLESSCOMMIETERRORIST".
At this point, the media has been pulled so far off to the right they're in their own world, the same way they're in their own world when they claim certain songs are popular (yet in a neighborhood full of teenagers i NEVER HEAR THEM).
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Please go look at
http://my.barackobama.com/
It's Obama's "Snopes".
---
Obama is a liberal
Obama will raise taxes on those making $225k & up (and I think $90k & Up)
That means a lot of powerful wealthy people are going to be doing a lot of despicable things to try and keep him from being elected. For them the Bush years have been great. The top 1% has gotten tax cuts so great that the top 5% shows tax cuts even tho taxes are up on the top 2-5%.
There are a lot of VALID reasons to oppose Obama because he IS a liberal. Or you can oppose him because he is socially liberal.
McCain is a conservative. I would have supported him but I saw a very clear moment in 2005 when he said, "I want to be president and I'm going to play ball with the wealthy and the corporations and the military industrial complex". He flipped on several key issues at that point and became Bush-3. I don't want to wait around 2-3 years until he reverts to being the McCain that I supported while the country goes deeper into debt and gets into a couple more pointless wars.
There are a lot of VALID reasons to oppose Obama because he IS a neo-con republican now. Or you can oppose him because is socially conservative.
Both candidates are going to be screwed as first term presidents by a vicious bear market akin to 1968-1980.
But do the decency to go to each man's site and read up on them. Clinton & Their ilk will create a lot of lies about McCain. Whisper campaigns. Play up how he divorced his first wife. Etc. Karl Rove and his ilk will create a lot of lies about Obama. Play up "Hussein". Plant whisper campaigns that he is a muslim. Etc.
If you really are a christian, shouldn't you be moral and ethical and really find out the truth about Obama rather than listening to gossip and lies? This is a man tha said he got down on his knees and accepted Jesus Christ when he was doing community work almost 30 years ago. He's been going to christian churches for all that time. And suddenly he's islamic? Bullshit.
I don't believe my self but I think it is more the dogma of christianity than the good works. Some of the dogma is silly but the basic meme is kind and moral.
Anyway... CHECK THE FACTS on BOTH men. Both are decent intelligent men. I'm going to vote Obama because he inspires me. He makes me believe in America as the shining beacon on the hill- that country where anyone can be president. The country that is tough as nails and a scrappy fighter but basically decent, honest, and fair.
I think I see how they felt about Kennedy. I sure hope Obama is elected and doesn't screw it all up with some stupid tragic flaw.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Barr is over 5% in 19 states, according to Zogby. His numbers are far higher than Nader's this time around: http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/09/good-polling-numbers/ And here's a clickable map: http://www.zogby.com/50state/
811.29.3.2
War on chocolate would be much like war on drugs. Only harder to win.
I fact... as they say that eating large quantities of chocolate has the same effect as smoking a joint - war on chocolate IS the war on drugs.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Bush clearly stated that he WOULD veto any bill that did not include telecom immunity.
And Bush would blame the DEMOCRATS for not sending him something he could sign.
So Bush has the balls to veto "needed tools for national security" if they came with provisions that he did not like.
But Obama does not.
A situation such as you describe is subject to Zeno's paradox; while evil may continue to diminish each cycle, you will never cross the line into a state of good.
Surely, I'm in the minority (and dammit, quit calling me Shirley), but for me, as a substantially liberal Republican, this move has solidified my vote for Obama. This, plus his reconsideration of a hasty Iraq withdraw shows me that he is willing and able to think things through and change his mind instead of waltzing the party line.
If McCain and Obama end up with the same stance on every issue, and Obama started out by telling you he hada different stance to begin with just to get the nomination...
Which is the lesser of two evils?
I'll take they guy who tells me what he's actually going to do, even if I don't like it, every time.
On top of that McCain has actually been a part of a number of truly bipartisan efforts in Congress. Obama says he is a uniter, but McCain has shown that he is through action.
Lastly McCain actually swore off earmarks, and my biggest issue this election is fiscal responsibility. If you want the "lesser of two evils" there, there is no better hope to push for reduced spending than McCain.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ron Paul voted against Iraq. Ron Paul opposed fisa. Ron Paul appears to be the only one who has read and understood the constitution.
If you hate the Patriot Act and the DMCA, Ron Paul may be your guy. Obama clearly can't be relied on to bring real change and clear up the corruption in Washington.
Read it here
You will be subjected to 2 possible outcomes.
The first is that FISA, in its current state, will continue merrily along, or even be loosened up more to allow Homeland Security easier access to your personal data. Your info will continue to be stored in an illegal database if you so dare as to call someone outside of the states, surf a website hosted overseas, etc.
Or, you could have a President who would come back to the issue as he's already stated he would and revise the bill, remove the parts that he already has stated were unconstitutional, and make it reasonable again.
The former is obviously John McCain, a guy who cares so little about this bill that he couldn't even be bothered to vote on it. FISA means nothing to him...just like it was with Bush when he made his first big stink about it because it could have been used to show how he broke the law.
The latter is obviously Obama, if you actually took the time to read his statement as to WHY he voted the way he did.
So, we got 7 months to decide if we like this, or we want something better. This president is following the party line, and that line is to not allow anything, no matter how reasonable it is, that could be counted as a success to the Democrats, to pass. The guy only passed the Veterans bill because there was no way that his veto could hold up on something like that in an election year. Bush doesn't do things because they're right or wrong, he's doing this because the Republican party "big picture" plan is to sandbag until enough Democrats cross their arms and pout and stay home on election night to make things easy. Notice how many Republicans voted against the FISA compromise? Not too many there. Notice how many Democrats voted against the FISA compromise? A whole lot more.
And the revulsion of the greater evil contains it's demise. The lesser evil leads in small steps to the same place but without the revulsion...
He voted FOR the bill. Nevermind he said that he would never vote for a bill that granted immunity. Nevermind that this bill is the last chance at exposing Bush's misdoings regarding the wiretapping scandal. The key is that it undermines individual protections; and he voted for it in favor of executive branch power.
He did NOT need to vote for the bill. The idea that law enforcement is denied 'precious' tools has been debunked time and again. All it denies is oversight - which is a terrible, terrible idea. The original FISA bill allowed for wiretaps with warrants, warrants that are easy to get, even after the fact. Instead, he has opted for blind trust in the executive branch.
There is always something you can do; he didn't need to vote for the bill. It would have been an easy thing to do - the bill still would have gone through. Make no bones about it; he's shifting to the middle in hopes of picking up swing voters who swallow the purple punch and believe the current Administration's rhetoric about how this is 'vital' to national security, or we're all DOOMED. It's overblown propaganda, and people need to recognize that.
Finally, let me note that he's not 'biding his time'. There is nothing he can do now; the bill has to be repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court. It's not like once he's President he can wave a magic wand and make the bad thing go away. More to the point, even if he could, voting for the bill does nothing to increase his ability to do so. It's entirely gutless move.
[Ego]out
With Obama's upcoming reversal on Iraq, you don't have to note he flip-fliped. You just have to note he had terrible judgement to start with (that the surge would fail) and McCain had the right idea, even against some Republican opposition.
Think of the humanitarian disaster that would have been abandoning Iraq a year ago. Frankly it would make the sum total of all losses to date pale by comparison, and have left a whole people to live a brutal life under Sharia, with the women especially living a totally different life than they can live today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.
Say what now?
You statement is built upon two false assumptions.
1. Evil is objectively quantifiable.
-I think it is subjective, especially when it comes to politics
2. The previously winning "lesser evil" will always be running for office.
-Not possible in Presidential elections.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Cause it's true.
Is this an american thing? What about MUFTI and BUNCE?
'nuff said :-)
And that's the reason the Republican Media Machine put him as the frontrunner. After 8 years of hell, a Republican president still seems like a viable option.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Senator Obama,
Today you voted to destroy the Constitution. You betrayed millions of supporters like myself when you voted away the 4th Amendment today. No amount of spin on your part is going to change the fact that you and your fellow Congressmen stabbed every American in the back today. You and the rest of your compatriots in the Senate and House have lost all claims to legitimacy. You have betrayed your oath of office, the Constitution and the People.
I cannot begin to express how violated, molested and utterly betrayed I feel by what you have done. I feel duped, suckered, hoodwinked and bamboozled. I feel like I have been robbed, raped and left bleeding in a dark alley.
Goodbye, Senator. This is a deal breaker. I will not be voting in November. You have destroyed what little hope I had left for my country. I now know without doubt that absolutely nobody in my government can be trusted. You and all your fellow traitors inside the beltway can go to hell. There is no excuse for what you have done and no possible explanation or apology will right this wrong.
In closing, Senator, I leave you with a reminder and fair warning from our founders.
I feel no shame for having taken a chance that you might be different, Senator. However, knowing now that you have taken ranks with the most vile among us, to remain in your camp would bring enduring shame and dishonor upon my soul.
Goodbye and God Save the People!
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
Did congress let Nixon off the hook for breaking the law? We will never know what really happened with spying under Bush. It is a sad day, but still better Blue than more Bush
none in the higher ranks. If you look at a politician, you might get the impression of honest dedication to a worthy cause, but anywhere above local politics, that is a facade. To understand this, you have to look at the way politicians get "promoted". The process is one big obstruction to open, honest and cause-driven people. The only people who end up on the radar of the nation-wide public are people who seek power and are willing to obtain it by manipulating opinions through any means available to them.
The only form of admiration that I wouldn't call naive is when you admire a politician for his/her career to the top. Of course you should admire George Bush then, but that triggers my gag reflex.
So...why is this on slashdot? "Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support" is a ridiculous headline, and it gives no evidence to support this whatsoever. I appreciate the opinion as I myself am very upset at Obama's choice, but it's just that, an opinion. "Losing Voters" is a completely unsubstantiated claim. And who the hell is Corrupt or Joan Walsh that I should care if they agree with me or not?
Here is my response that I sent to the Obama campaign:
My spouse and I will no longer be donating to the Obama campaign. Barack Obama's support of the telecom immunity bill is disappointing.
We also withdraw our offer to host a fellow at our home.
This bill shows that Corporate America is now above the law.
Barack Obama's stance on Corporate influence in our political system is now clear.
Regards,
Ted and Shelly Varias
Losing voters to whom? McCain? Because his views on personal privacy is so much better? They're all just more of the same Republicrats now.....
If there is a death penalty for child rape then the rapist is actually encouraged to murder the child after the rape in order to dispose of the evidence.
Which would you rather do?
A) Place flowers on the grave of your child.
B) Help your child piece their life back together.
So "progressive" means leniency for repeat child rapists?
Are you planning on making a bunch of T-shirts and bumper stickers to rally people around that position?
I just joined the ACLU, and I'm considering not voting for him in the fall.
Not really - not when there is a new pair of less-evil and more-evil every two terms.
the evils would diminish instead of grow
I'd say at most that they might grow slower, and that's only until they get enough power to reach the level of contempt for their fellows that makes them a "greater evil"
If he's not willing to pursue a change that might be controversial because it could cost him the election then he won't behave any differently after he's elected because then he'll be worrying about getting re-elected to the position.
People who stand for something will stand for it all the time and not just when its "safe" to do so.
IIRC that was KICK, not LICK. You must have been watching FOX for your information.
I participated in EFF's advocacy, calling and /or emailing 3 of the senators that voted for this bill, and several that voted against it. Obama at least voted for the amendments that would have dealt with telco immunity, which is more than I can say for Mikulski and Carper. The fact that so many Senators voted for the bill itself and it's escalation of spying powers saddens me greatly.
I suddenly find myself without a candidate that I can fully support as a result of this Obama's Iraq capitulations on troop withdrawal.
For a moment I actually thought Obama was going to be a progressive leader.
Maybe Nader and Barr are right, and the real problem is that 2-party politics is systemically faulted.
"You can't dissect him, predict him, which of course means he's not a lunatic at all."
well, i must be living in a better country!
the local google tells me, that the fisa is the
"Fédération Internationale des Sociétés dâ(TM)Aviron (FISA)" ... and only the second best link explains me what you probably mean:
www.worldrowing.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
happy me.
Just a thought: Are the terrorists on the right track to win?
Here's why (assuming they view the democracy and christianity as enemy and U.S.A. as the main strategic ground in fight against both):
Is that it?
hany
Seen it. I fail to see how it justifies breaking the promises he made to his supports, and not having a backbone when it came to busting this bill.
The prior system, with FISA, worked fine. Not supporting this bill wouldn't have made that any worse. Warrants came with what was equivalently a post-dated-cheque as it is, so WTF is it in this bill that improves the situation? warrantless wiretapping was already illegal. What the telcos were doing by supporting it was already illegal. Retroactively changing laws is also illegal according to that beloved piece of paper that your government is wiping it's butt with, so what please explain to me how this law is in any way benefiting the people of the US?
If politics were really as bad as you make out, we'd all be slaves by now. Sure, there are problems, but for the most part, politicians of all parties are honestly doing what they think is best for the country.
Do lobbyists manipulate politicians into thinking that what is good for company or cause X is good for the country? Certainly, and that is an issue we need to address.
Is there a higher percentage of sociopaths at the highest level of politics than in the general population? I think so, but the same is true for the business world as well, and will be true in any hierarchical power structure. Is it anywhere near 100%? No.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The last sentence in this post says it all. A lot of people in this response column alone are talking about staying home or voting green.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Good, I'm happy Obama is losing people over FISA.
He lost my vote yesterday, and the money I was going to donate to him is now going to the ACLU, who it seems will have to work as hard to protect us against Obusha as they did against George Dubai Bush.
OBUSHA: Capitulation you can depend on!
Obama didn't cave on FISA. He just looked at the core issues.
Take a look at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html
If we assume that article has correctly identified what was happening, the core issue becomes how to get massive, automated wiretapping under judicial control. The article states that there aren't enough judges to process all the warrants needed under the old FISA law using the new technology. So instead of fixing the law, the administration ignored it. Bush and Cheney should be impeached over this, but that isn't going to happen.
A major purpose of the telecom lawsuits was to get discovery going and find out what was happening. The investigation ordered by the new law is also supposed to do that. However, if the article is right we know what was happening. Enough was said publicly about a variety of matters for the author of the article to figure out the underlying technology.
Let's give Obama credit for focusing on the core issues and working to get them fixed. If he gave on the immunity sideshow, that's just part of the imperfection that he said was there in the compromise.
Obama or McCain. Both of them are going to help Mexico turn the US into a Northern part of Mexico. Obama votes yes for killing part of the constitution and making sure the telcos and Bush will never be held responsible, you have Hatch saying that basically there should be no checks and balances but into place by our founding fathers, and then you have McCain not even showing up to vote on FISA because he probably would have voted yes too but now he can say "I didn't vote for it." We are just screwed period.
Presidential candidates don't need your help, it's the local ones. They're the ones who grow up to be presidential candidates. If you get good ones in office locally, you not only benefit immediately, but you have a much better chance of getting 'bigger' candidates that have similar beliefs and concerns.
...I am also very upset about his unwillingness to fight telecom
immunity. This is a serious issue for me. I, and many of my friends
and family are tired of being spied upon and considered seditious in
the overreaching "War on Terror"; this unwillingness essentially
rewards the companies that were "just following orders", and makes
Barack seem weak in the 'War on the Constitution'.
That said, I'm a locally active DFL'er - not because I agree with everything that the DFL stands for, but so I can try and make changes to the DFL at the low level, like Instant Runoff Voting, and other platforms that will hopefully trickle up. (Incidentally making other parties more viable)
An excerpt from my letter to Obama (sent several weeks before this vote):
My wife and I are delegates for the first district in MN. We got involved for the first time because we believed that Barack would kick corporate interests out of Washington, that he would help restore the Constitution, and that we would have someone in office who not only held similar beliefs, but would not compromise them. I've combated many false and slanderous emails, reached out to many independent voters who were 'on the fence', and was the first in my town to sport a Obama sign in my yard, sticker on my car, and button on my guitar strap - but I'm sad to say that I'm becoming disillusioned.
I need Barack to stop compromising. I need him to hold the current (and future) administration accountable, I need him to return government to the people, rather than corporate interests. I need him to keep to the ideals which made me want to actively support a candidate for the first time in 20 years. I will do my best to get him elected, but only if I can believe in him.
The response I got was a plea for money. Thanks, but I'll spend my dollars on local candidates in MN, who I can trust not to tell me one thing, and do another.
I disagree with this recent vote on FISA, but seriously, it's one vote. You'll never agree on everything with any politician, or person, for that matter. Good luck voting for anyone if you can't stand to disagree with a vote they made.
Why wouldn't Obama support this? Why wouldn't the Democrats support this?
Hey Dems,'bout time to wise up and ditch your socialist overlords.
For what you really want in politics go to www.lp.org and you will find the only common sense alternative to the smug buttsucking liars who have conned you.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Sure there is. You can lead. You can say, "No, I won't gut the Constitution. You all can, but I won't." The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.
Not only is the man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans, he is also running to be in charge of a country which has much international influence. There are minor countries that say its okay for them to treat their people badly, because the US is doing the same - while image and reality aren't the same thing they are often treated to be the same. If he can't improve the situation and image of the country which has been run down in the past years, then is he really the person for the job? I don't believe Mcain is either, so in many ways we are running with the same team, but with a different dress style.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
It was not LICK.
It was not KICK.
It was CUT OFF.
Jesse Jackson shows his true colors again.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
There's only one party...The RepublicCrats, They pretend to disagree on minor distractions, but nobody wants real change. After all, a politicians first job is to get reelected. The current system put them in power, and they are not about to change it.
I used to say "If you want real change, vote for Chuck Baldwin with the Constitution party." Then the black box voting machines stopped counting our votes.
Now I say "If you want real change, learn to shoot."
Andy
Enter tin-hat mode:
My pet tin hat theory is that the Clinton's slipped a stupid pill into his drink when he wasn't looking and convinced him that supporting FISA and believing in the failed Clinton theory that voters are a zero sum game with the Repulsican's where both fantastic ideas.
Thus, his suicidal support of the FISA legislation and the following of the falisy that you need to change your positions to get 10% of the voters that occupy the center rather than remaining progressive and going gang busters after the 40%+ that don't usually vote in the general elections!
He's done. Maybe that's what the Clinton's intended so Billery could ride in on a white horse in August and "save" the party? /Tin-hat-mode
denying law enforcements precious tools
wtf?
you had me at #!
It would be nice to see somebody showing backbone and/or principles occasionally.
you had me at #!
the Obama backlash. Welcome to the world of Realpolitik where if you don't bother to vote, you voted for the winner.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
What he DOES is what counts, and this is what he did. This kind of behavior is what you take to the bank,
Absolutely!
you had me at #!
Think about this for a moment...you are a business owner. The government comes knocking on your door. They're having problems with terrorists, and can we please have some of your customer data, because we believe some of your customers are terrorists. You know, help us out a bit, do the patriotic, civic duty thing...whadda ya say? All you people are saying you're going to tell the government "Go screw yourself!!!"??? So lets say I do my civic duty and help the government, and you now want to sue me? Sorry, I'm standing tall and going to let you know that if you have a problem, take it up with the government, not me. And if you don't want to do business with me in the future because of this, well then I'm not interested in having you as a customer. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
It does make me mad that Obama would support this legislation and it undermines the principles he should be standing for. I do vote democrat but it is bothering that they seem to be eroding away their own support base by support republican ideas rather than differentiating themselves and actually supporting a free democratic society not trying to turn it into a police state. Pelosis idea of censoring the net was also very dissappointing. Of course the republicans are worse, but it is upsetting because we need a party to oppose the agenda which seems to be aimed at turning us into a police state. I would still vote democrat just to help keep Mccain out of power which would be worse than obama. Obama has made committments on the net neutrality which mccain has not done. Voting for mccain, a third party or not voting will do far more damage than voting for Obama, that i am sure of, so I will vote for obama and democrats which on the whole are better than the republicans by far. To not do so would be suicidal, i cant stand the idea of 4 more years of neocon war faring, slash education and social well being, damage the environment, etc, etc.
Another thing is, if people are fed up with the two party duopoly, maybe its time to look at a porportional or preferential election system, like Instant runoff voting so you can rank your candidates in order of preference and dont end up throwing away your vote on candidates who cant win and allowing another Bush to get elected.
There is little doubt that obama is a lot better than mccain, even though he is not perfect. Mccain would be a total disaster at least there are some positive things about Obama. Voting for mccain would be suicide, and pretty much we can be assured with our first past the post dual party system it will be mccain or obama, obama is far better. Any liberal who votes for a third party is just going to help mccain win and we will end up in a far worse situation than with obama. So we need to look at who is overall best, just because obama isnt perfect we should not help get mccain elected which any liberal who goes third party or does not vote will do.
Instant runoff would give people the confidence to vote in a third party but have their vote fall back to the democrats if the third party cant win. It would actually cause third parties to become more prominent and encourage people to vote on principle rather than popularity. But we dont have that system yet so we do need to vote for obama so we end up with someone who is overall better than mccain. This goes for all the congressional races as well, where democrats need a lot of help to win and do have an overall better platform, although not perfect.
So then fudging the bucket is a good thing, no?
This English confuses me...
....Congress can introduce any legislation they want to, AFTER the veto power is on the other foot. Now, if anyone thought that Barack Obama was going to be the black Che Guevara or some shit, get real. He's not a Clinton, not a Bush, and not McSame. That's a glorious thing in and of it's self. ;)
No, he's not a Dennis Kucinich or a John Edwards, but he'll do for now.
This isn't and never was about Barack Obama. He is merely a stepping stone to better, more Liberal things. Be happy, Democratic Left! We're putting the first black guy in the White House and he will do a good job there. Just think where we can go from here.
If we can do this, maybe there is a President Kucinich or Cohen in our future after all. :)
Check this out, fellow Lefties...
Barack Obama said...
LINK
And I quote "my friends on the left".
"My friends on the Left"
What other Democratic presidential front runner ever said that? Ever?? Take the hint, people.
Think about the gravity of this statement. I've been waiting all my life to have someone one step from the White House that acknowledges us directly and with pride instead of trying to publicly distance them self from us.
It's ok to question what Obama does during his campaign, but we have to remember that he's a "friend". Let's question him like we would a friend, not as we would an enemy.
For no matter what he does that rubs us the wrong way, the only alternative is McSame and the McLames that support him.
Forget about the Right, forget about the Center. They've done nothing but harm.
The Democratic party is ours and we're taking the White House in November.
Until we do, nothing will get done.
What am I missing? (I was previously outraged this passed)
Sounds like the bill tries to make a SINGLE way for the government to get a wiretap and PREVENT warrantless wiretapping.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/fisa.explainer/index.html
Question: What are the key provisions in the FISA bill?
Benson: The bill explicitly establishes FISA as the exclusive means for authorizing electronic surveillance; requires a court order for the surveillance of any targeted American, whether the person is in the United States or abroad; [and] requires a secret court set up to oversee FISA issues to sign off on provisions for removing the name of any American inadvertently captured in a communication with a foreign target.
[It] prohibits reverse targeting, which is when intelligence officials eavesdrop on a foreigner's communications overseas as a means to spy on someone in the United States, and sets up a procedure for federal judges to determine whether a telecommunications company can be sued for providing the intelligence community access to its networks without a court order.
Question: Under the proposed FISA bill, can Americans be spied on without a court warrant? Are their civil liberties protected?
Benson: Under the new revised law, a warrant is required to spy on an American, including, for the first time, Americans who are abroad.
If the intelligence community should unintentionally intercept a phone call or an e-mail involving an American, the agency involved must get a warrant if the person is of interest or take steps to erase that person's name from any report.
The court will annually review procedures for protecting communications, but it will not oversee individual cases. Opponents claim this represents minimal court oversight and enables the government to spy on innocent Americans' phone calls and e-mails.
The bill states that domestic electronic surveillance is authorized exclusively by the provisions of FISA. This is an effort to prevent the president from secretly authorizing warrantless eavesdropping, which some lawmakers and civil rights groups claim violates the public's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.
However, the bill does not address President George Bush's claim that he has Article 2 constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief to order such activity during times of war.
But you had to expect Obama to go towards the middle. It's not popular for people who want "liberal" things done, but he can't just keep preaching to the choir. I hate his stance on this. It aggravates me, but I know he's still trying to do good things. The reason "other" candidates are so cool is because they know they have no shot of winning. Look at the crazy and awesome things people like Ron Paul, Steve Forbes, Al Sharpton, and even Ross Perot were able to say! Of COURSE you can say those things and say how you really feel because only a small percentage will agree with you [when you consider the ENTIRE POPULATION of the United States]. My vote's going to be cast for Obama this year, reluctantly, but I know it's better used on him than a vote that will not go to him and give McCain an edge. McCain of 2000 = decent choice. McCain of '08 = the continued slide of America into the wastebin.
I support telephone company immunity because I understand it.
The key fact to remember regarding this issue is that it applies only to international traffic. That is, the communication must cross the border.
The United States government already conducts tens of thousands of unwarranted searches at its borders every day. Why should phone calls get a special exemption?
The arguments against the bill as passed are entirely fatuous and purely political.
For instance, the willing conflation of "U.S. persons" with "U.S. citizens." Telecom law is all about "U.S. persons" who may or may not be U.S. citizens. A "U.S. person" is anybody within the territory of the United States.
If Osama bin Laden were to visit Hawaii he would be a U.S. person under telecom law.
If bin Laden still has operatives in this country, they are U.S. persons. Why should their international phone calls be exempt from border searches?
That brings us to anther willful imbecility, ignoring the fact the provisions in question are about international phone calls. A frequent fatuousity ignoring this fact is "OMG they are accessing local switches." Well of course they are, what, you think international traffic makes some kind of subspace hop to a U.S. person's local handset?
I know the phone system "inside and out" if you get my meaning. I've had to write C that obeyed these laws. Millions of customers' rights were protected by my code, down to the tiniest legal requirements of each jurisdiction we served.
I think it's great that Obama is losing votes over this. Those voters are really voting for Osama and, at least on this issue, Obama has finally differentiated himself from Osama.
Although I'm a conservative (I don't think Republican in the contemporary context is applicable) that believes in smaller government, more responsibility for actions, less actions, less redistribution of money, less debt, et cetera with some exceptions like education and health in that order, I do not support the current president and I will not support McCain. I hate the fact that I must choose the lesser of two evils rather than being able to be proud that I voted for so-and-so. You seemed to be just that until this recent FISA fiasco among other things. I had considered crossing the very thick party lines (my family would have disowned me) for you, but I cannot in good conscience do so.
Now the frustration of politics of the last decade or two has lead me down a thorny path and I'm going to suggest a rough draft of an idea that's perhaps a bit extreme to start with. I'm tempted to suggest all future presidential candidates must have absolutely no history in politics, and the vice-president would basically help the president with the political part of things but leave the president to make the decisions. I'd further stipulate that the president and vice president be required to receive from any source only sufficient money to pay reasonable life expenses during the presidency and for a period of 10 years before and after, auditable by any citizen and severe penalties and charges of treason be brought should something arise.
That said, stand up for the rights of the people- strike down FISA at any cost.
No, Bush is hammered for what he stands for: A corrupt military industrial complex acting without conscience, bereft of any civilised values, killing indiscriminately, irretrievably damaging the planet, harming citizens both within its own country and without, acting illegally in every sphere (nationally and internationally), and lying about all of it, to everyone.
Plus, personally, he's a worthless, narcissistic, stupid, unpleasant, dishonest, inbred, bogus-Texan-aristocracy piece of shit. Karma's going to work nicely on him and his buddies.
Then there's Bill Gates...
you had me at #!
Why not vote against it?
Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law. Obama, and others, tried to strip the immunity. It didn't work. So given the choice between maintaining the status quo (worse) or accepting that the telecom companies have bought out a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama voted for the bill so AT LEAST executive power is restrained a bit more.
Obama chose 'something' over 'nothing'.
The immunity is also not absolute, and if/when Obama is President, hopefully the issue can be revisited when a Bush veto doesn't have to be overcome (which is a mere 6 months from now).
paintball
WTF is FISA?
ROFL. If you are going to throw acronyms around you should define them once like "FISA(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)" in your article, as a courtesy to your readers. I read your op piece and had absolutely no idea what you were talking about until the last paragraph.
Good writers do this for their readers. You shouldn't assume that everyone knows what every political/legal acronym means...
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Sure, a some people will turn to the greens, and a few to McCain, but mostly he hasn't lost votes per se. What he has lost is voter's "interest", i.e. campaign volunteers and contributors.
I'll still vote for him, but I deleted his application from my facebook. :P
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Wow. I guess John Kerry would be your dream politician. He's a master at changing his position. He'll 'work towards the right direction' multiple times ... on single issue!
John "Whiplash" McCain is the true master. All politicians change their positions from time to time, but seldom does one end up opposing so many of the laws he himself introduced.
Canada did not and is not participating in the Iraq invasion. To do so would be a colossal moral failure.
They are participating in Afghanistan.
you had me at #!
Well, it would make a nice change from the current administration who insist on staying the course regardless of the consequences. Only terrorists learn from their mistakes!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
What is wrong with FISA that the current bill fixes?
This bill changes nothing except now what the Bush administration did illegally, it can now do legally. And the fact that they were doing it illegally before is also, actually, legal.
The only thing this does is confirm that the CIA/NSA can do whatever they want regardless of the law and if they get caught, Congress will bail them out.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Then there's the million-odd dead Iraqi civilians (men, women, children). But Bush-Cheney didn't much feel like counting those cadavers.
you had me at #!
If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils [...] evils would diminish instead of grow.
Um. What?
Evil would still grow. It might grow at a slower rate, but it would still be growing.
Where available...and all that.
you had me at #!
Since 2004 we have had mainly 2 types of politicians. Those who blindly and carelessly support whatever legislation comes across their desk, as long as it plays well to their base and they can get reelected. Then we had those who took the stance that the present state of the country and the US's actions post-911 were the result of fear, a lack of critical thinking, and party politics. The FISA vote was time for the latter group to put their money where their mouth was, as it were. An overwhelming majority failed.
This was it for me, personally. Any faith I had left in our government rested on this vote. So now, I have precisely zero confidence left in my countries ability to govern itself. I know this rant/comment may come off as over dramatic to some, but I dont see it that way. This vote showed whether or not our congress, the main opposition to the executive, the dominant legislative body, would get through the "fear" and "party politics" and strike down a bill that was genuinely bad for this country and its inhabitants. It simply didnt happen.
I didnt like Hillary, because I knew that she would play all the politics she had to to get to the White House. The same with McCain (and he genuinely scares me). I didnt want to support that kind of person. Obama was new and fresh. I didnt really know what to make of him, but that was ok because I already *knew* the other 2 major candidates. So I put my support behind him. With this vote he actually made me feel sick to my stomach. I can understand that to get to the white house to actually try and do some good, one would have to engage in *some* politics. But this FISA vote was not just a run of the mill vote. This was a defining vote in my mind. Needless to say, I will not back him from this point on.
Its funny, when I got into work this morning I was thinking about this whole mess a bit. If I had nothing to lose, my family all dead and no fiance/wife, I might actually join/support some "revolutionary group". I will probably come to my senses in a few days, but as of now, thats just how I feel.
This is just ONE of MANY examples proving that Obama is a total stuffed shirt who only says the right things, and almost never does them.
If he was a REAL candidate of hope and change, who actually gave even a passing nod to the constitution, or even any of the tenets set forth by Franklin, Jefferson, and the other geniuses who set up our system, he would not be a "realistic" candidate, and he certainly wouldn't get so much air time on corporate TV.
All you Obama fans had a real guy representing the stuff you really wanted. His name was Kucinich, and his wife is totally hot.
Oh, and he's the one in congress delivering impeachment papers day after day, too.....
But what he doesn't have is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSN, and Rolling Stone completely sucking his cock. There's a reason for that, too. He's the real deal, unlike stuffed shirt Obama, who talks the talk and then sells the constitution out for corporate and political power every time. Just like the FISA thing.
You people claiming it's a simple mistake that he will work to correct are idiots. The FISA thing is an OBVIOUS choice, actually talked about DIRECTLY in the fourth amendment.
You people claiming Republican's are far worse are also idiots. They are exactly the same. They just don't even SAY the right things. Well, they say the right things for old people and people who talk to invisible men in the sky, but then they vote pro corporate and pro fascist just like the Democrats. There is NO difference. The party lines are both the same: The bottom line for Viacomm, AOL/Time Warner, Bertelsmann, News Corp, and Disney.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
And even if everyone did have a sudden burst of reason and common sense and voted for Kucinich, he would still lose because Diebold does not count your votes. And you would never hear about it because the corporate media wouldn't tell you the news, even though the exit polls aren't matching and the UN claims the election is totally fraudulent. That is exactly what happened during BOTH of the last elections.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
his plans for spending will bankrupt us quickly
Would that be quicker or slower than kicking off a SIX-TRILLION-dollar war of aggression?
you had me at #!
The amount by which someone is "just another politician" is inversely proportional to how often they do what I want.
I am very upset over this but I should not be surprised. He is just another politician. (But lesser of the two evils)
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this might depend on your goals. For example:
Say your #1 concern is global warming. Who's personally stronger on eliminating fossil fuels? Obama. But that doesn't matter.
No matter what anybody wishes, the odds of getting a 2/3 Democrat majority in Congress are low. So, if Obama wins, expect the Republicans to fight Democrat policies in this regard. But, if McCain wins, he'll bring enough of the Republicans over to get the legislation passed.
So, if you're a global-warming 'nut', McCain's your man if you care about progress rather than ideology, and by all reason if it's almost too late to do something about global warming, there's no time left for ideology. So, a vote for Obama is a vote for a warming planet from the ruthlessly efficient standpoint. A bit surprising, no?
This is just to illustrate that the balance of evils can be deceptive, and hard to pin down (not so surprising for evil!). Or you could just vote 'not-evil', but it seems most folks won't do that, they prefer to try to game the system, no matter the track record of doing so.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's not like you would have gotten any cash out of it.
What's cash got to do with it?
you had me at #!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html
If we learned anything from the West Wing, it's that presidential staffers spend time bribing congress with taxpayer dollars for pork projects. Senators and Congressmen like sure money, not "if I win" money
he has failed to protect our way of life
That your "way of life" is totally unprotectable? Because it's totally unsustainable, something that is obvious to a 5-year-old. (At least, any non-American five-year-old.)
you had me at #!
Interestingly enough while semi-randomly browsing YouTube I found this video of Dennis Kucinich talking about how the congress is trying to push that FISA thing and how they went as far as having a secret congress meeting (the 6th in history) dedicated to the topic.
Seems like unlike what I first thought that stakes are much higher than what I suspected would be an issue only the Slashdot crowd would care about. I hope this video sheds some light on the context of this news article, even though the video isn't news.
You just got troll'd!
I have never admired a politician in my life (get a life !). I have admired statesmen, but they then need to be dead 50 years or more.
I was going to vote for Obama for President this fall. Politically, I am an independent who has voted Republican a few times and Democrat fewer times. Mostly, I stay home (voting third party is meaningless in the system we have). I also think that we need to start repairing the Constitutional enforcement ASAP. Enough damage has been done over the past 40 years (when was the last time Congress declared war ?).
Here he comes along, this fellow trained in constitutional law, and I say, ok, maybe I will give him a chance. Voted for him in the New Hampshire primary. Was happy when he finally put the Clinton machine to bed and started the campaign. I do not buy for a moment that he has been tacking to the center. He has long been a supporter of faith based initiative (his career as a community organizer was nothing but a faith based initiative). I have concerns about separation of religion and state, but with sensible safeguards like hiring constraints etc., those issues can be dealt with. His position on guns has changed but it does not matter either way for me. The second amendment is safe and since I do not own a handgun, I admit I do not follow this issue very closely.
However, the fourth amendment is perhaps the second most amendment (after the first amendment) in our country. It (used to) places restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It has become more and more toothless and yesterday, it was effectively carved out of the constitution by legislators who had no legal right to do so (changing the constitution in such fundamental ways requires a constitutional amendment - but who has the time these days for the people to actually express their opinion - like Gonzalez is supposed to have said about something related, this is so "quaint"). In the modern world (just look at the farce playing out in Europe with the countries bold enough to reject a constitution disguised as a treaty), laws do not matter as much. They can always be incrementally extinguished.
Who is responsible for all of this ? WE ARE. Why ? Let me know how many Senators (and House members) who voted to gut our Constitution again get re-elected in fall.
As to Obama, well, he just lost my vote yesterday. It does not matter whether he collects enough focus group flack to apologize for it at some point in time or says his vote was wrong, I am done with him. I know his vote would not have made that much of a difference (though the moral statement would have been massive), but he had the opportunity to act on his conscience yesterday. He did not. I will not be doing the same in November. My ballot on the question of the President, will be blank. Down ticket, it will depend on what my representatives did in Congress.
And Mr. Barack Constitutional Law Obama, it does not appear that you were paying attention in class. Grant of retroactive immunity is unconstitutional in itself :
Article I section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". It just remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will educate the Congress on the matter. Given recent history, I am not overly optimistic.
Actually, the entire telecomm immunity thing isn't the point.
The point is, both the old FISA and the new FISA both allow warrantless searches. The old FISA provided for 72 hours of oversight-free tapping. The new FISA allows for many months of oversight-free tapping. They're both direct and obvious violations of the 4th amendment.
The position put forth by Obama is that "the government needs these tools"; the only correct action is to pursue article V (amendment) and see if they can get them; to violate the amendment because "they want to" is to act as if the constitution doesn't exist.
Why is this so important? Because if one part of the constitution can be ignored, so can any other part. Either we live in a constitutional republic, or we live in a nation ruled by 645 privileged nobles (535 reps, 100 senators, 9 judges and a president) who are not bound by anything other than what they agree upon.
I was brought up to understand that the nation I lived in was designed and authorized as a constitutional republic. How about you? Do you think the constitution should matter with regard to what the government can or cannot do, or are you more inclined to live in a nation ruled and guided exclusively by the fashions and opinions of 645 people? People, I should add, who were sworn into their jobs explicitly committing allegiance to, and swearing defense of, the constitution.
Is the retroactive pardoning of corporations for spying on the citizens distasteful? Yes, you bet it is. But it isn't the root of the problem, and as long as you, and people like you, keep harping on immunity, you're going to be blinded to what is actually wrong.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
(sigh) They always turn out to be the same in the end, don't they?
Unless you are comparing it to the statutes of the "Protect America Act" this law is significantly worse, and does nothing to protect our safety. But it is worse than the PAA, because the statutes of that law expire, which puts us back to the fine FISA act which was passed in 1975. There is nothing that this new law adds to the '75 FISA act which protects our safety. What it does is allows the Executive Branch full power to break the law as it sees fit, with the only oversight coming from the Executive Branch, this law would make the Watergate affair legal.
Take principled action and vote for Barr.
civil liberties are much more precious than law enforcement tools.
law enforcement is doing just fine, we imprison more people per capita than anyone.
this vote just dramatically lowered the value of being american, much of which is supposedly freedom-based.
and this fool helped them. he voted yes!
there was no need to, no excuse to. no gain whatsoever.
Idiot.
Obama is a constitutional Scholar - the retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and therefore unconstitutional - by voting for this and knowing that section should be struck down he denies swiftboaters the ability to claim he's "soft on terror"
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Feeling a little paranoid are we? An extremely huge bureacratic, highly inefficient government like ours would never have the time or the capital to spend worrying about you boneheads watching porn or downloading music on your dual quad core gaming rigs.
300 million people is a little far too many people to spy on is it not? Worried about what goes through your data channel? Encrypt it. Just don't try suing the government when or if we have another 911 since you think every human working for the government "must" want to know what your doing with your private home life.
Reality dictates here folks, sorry. The odds of our government ever using it's spying power for anything other than tracking down terrorists is not likely. Even if they were concerned with what you do on your home pc, excluding things like buying uranium or ordering parts online for building a bomb of some sort, there's not much they can do if you go through the trouble of encrypting your communications.
This on the importance scale of 1-10 is about a 1.
Energy = 10
financial reform = 9
health reform = 8
Quit wasting your time on trivialities. You guys ain't seen nothin yet.
I don't want McCain to win, but at the same time, someone has to have some principles somewhere along the line and I'm not giving up mine. I'm standing up for myself and not supporting Obama any longer.
I don't know about anyone else, but this sounds just as narrow-minded as any other single-issue voter. In a democracy, you will not always get everything you want. You need to weigh what's important, and what's possible, and try to get the best candidate you can. Sure, a multi-party system would help, but beyond that you sound no different than someone voting entirely on the issue of abortion, gay rights, or gun rights.
Sure, if you find FISA to be -the- issue, and it outweighs all other issues (environment, Iraq, foreign policy, etc), then go right ahead and throw your support elsewhere. Or if you think that his stance on FISA shows an endemic problem in his character, then go right ahead.
I think this is crap, too. And I'm really upset (in general, at first glance. I haven't read enough about it to have a full opinion) that Obama voted this way. But there other important aspects of his platform that I -do- agree with, and I won't let this one reasonably large flaw change that.
There's a THREE DAY grace period between when the spies can start spying, and they have to get their spying rubber-stamped by a Judge.
So, there is NO LAW ENFORCEMENT BENEFIT to this bill. It is purely there to provide cover for CRIMINALS.
Remember that: Anyone who voted for this bill is SOFT ON CRIME and HATES THE AMERICAN VALUES OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, AND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
In 1968 lots of liberals and academics refused to support Hubert Humphrey. That elected Nixon and led to all the evil he committed. In 2000 a lot of environmentalists supported Nader over Gore and gave us Shrub. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama you might as well double down and vote for McCain. It is going to be one of them or the other.
I liked Thom Hartmann's idea that whoever becomes president will _have_ to respond to America in crisis. Both Roosevelts were "class traitors" because they had to do _something_ to restore the country. In that light, sure, let's build Obama into the second coming of Christ so the disappointment when he acts like a 2004 Democrat as President might finally explode the American people into a rage of action that _demands_ Obama fulfill his mandate.
Unfortunately, the more he ignores the constitution and the will of the people before he is nominated, much less elected, the more wiggle room we give him to act like a typical politician and say, "Hey, you knew what I was like before you elected me!"
The closest term I can think of for what they are is neo-imperialists (gad, I can't believe I used that word). Conservative, whether "neo" or whatever, is something they most certainly are NOT.
:(
Regards;
Hmm Republicans no longer stand for small government and Democrats no longer stand for personal freedoms - time for a third party - You might consider voting Libertarian this year?
Keith's Special Comment on Obama regarding FISA was unusually apologetic. Normally Keith goes for the jugular in a special comment, and they are wildly entertaining as a result. This one was different in that instead of attacking Obama for abandoning his alleged principles he spends a great deal of time trying to explain how what Obama is doing is really smart and best for America.
The FISA vote didn't just cost Obama his reputation, it pulled down Keith with it.
http://www.specialcomment.com/
Sadly, it looks to me more and more like USA is ruled by just one party with 2 names and is slowly moving into oil and military-industrial plutocratic fascist for-profit "dictatorship" that makes money from war and where choice is only in the name.
This does not bode well for the humanity. Corporate plutocracy has never had the self control it would take to stop threats like Global Climate Change, and it seems like it's soon going to be too late.
Only Seven Years Left for Global Warming Target
I want the whole dollar.
The way things are going, the value of your dollar is going to plummet rapidly in the upcoming years, and I haven't seen any indication that either candidate is going to do anything about it.
Puns aside, I really don't see much difference between McCain and Obama; both seem to do what's politically expedient, which happens to be supporting the status quo.
I turned 35 earlier this year, so I can run for President this year. I'm wondering if I should.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm not sure about the people here, but I, for one, would rather lose a little bit of privacy than risk losing the people I care about.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
- Benjamin Franklin, A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
An Ex Post Facto law does the opposite of what you are thinking. If congress passes a law making something illegal, its unconstitutional to prosecute someone for "breaking" that law before it took effect.
it changes the status of the act - either direction (from legality to illegality or from illegality to illegality)
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
How about no.
Someone brought this up to Obama in his campaign stop in Fairfax, VA - his response talking about he helped expand the federal whistleblowers law.
he says the issue here is that we haev a surveilliance program that tracks people that could do us harm - it was supposed to run through FISA (i'm trying to keep up with him while typing this) - "there is little doubt the bush administration chose to ignore FISA in setting up with program" and went to the phone companies. Reason we originally wanted to deny them immunity was not just to punish them but to find out how the program was abused and we might not have any leverage to make sure going forward the program wasn't violating basic civil liberties. Hence he voted against the original version of the bill. He said the current bill is not perfect - it did two things he wanted to support: explicitly stated that ALL surveilliance programs MUST go through FISA to make sure they're getting warrants, it also institutes and inspector general to investigate any abuses already present. He recognizes some people feel that the phone companies were complicit and should be accountable and he understands this - but he feels that this surveilliance (when conducted legally w/ warrants) is important for our security and he had to balance punishing the telecoms and what he feels is needed now - he also made reference to the fact that he can change things when he gets into office.
So... we have an official response
sorry for the paraphrase i tried to keep up.. there is a direct quote embedded
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Larry lessig has an interesting take on this here: http://www.lessig.org/blog/
I guess he probably understands the subtlety of the actual issues than most of the crowd here. Anyone?
... then, maybe, you can explain the job-description of Community Organizer to me?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Who the hell else are they going to vote for? This is actually a good way to hedge his bet. Chances are the people who are leaning towards Obama agree with his other positions, and since McCain is for FISA then those people will likely see no reason to go his way. If anything, this is a possible way to get those that are undecided and people who think Obama is too liberal. Politically, its a good way to try and get other votes.
People forget that pretty much either way Obama could've voted, he would've been fucked. Had he voted Nay, he would've looked weak on foreign affairs and national security, a point that McCain would surely beat to a puree. Furthermore, had the Senate bill been voted down, we would have months more of wrangling over a successor bill. Now that he's voted Yea, he's angered a lot of civil libertarians. I don't envy the guy at all. The bill is not perfect -- but let's remember that the best shouldn't be made the enemy of the good. And perhaps when we have a more enlightened president and more enlightened representatives and senators, a superior bill will repair the damage.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Before anyone gets mad about Obama's lack of a vote, check his record so far (he supported the three attempts to strip immunity out of this bill that failed), go back and actually read the amendment, and then check this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBj42uOUc9E
The part you'll be most interested in starts around 5:20. In it, Olbermann reports on the legal opinions of John Dean and others that reviewed the FISA reform bill and found that, while it protected the telcos against civil litigation (no class action suits), it doesn't protect them against federal suits. So basically, the telcos are still subject to criminal investigation, as is Bush himself.
I'm maintaining a wait-and-see position. Keep in mind that Obama, when asked about the current administration, said he was keeping open his option to investigate them when he's in office. I think he's keeping his cards close to his vest for now.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
A lot of the time riders are done strictly for political maneuvering.
A bill is brought before the house that takes the entire budget for NASA and gives it to parks and recreation. Person in political party A attaches a rider to it that increases penalties for child pornographers.
Person in party B votes against disbanding NASA. Now Person A can claim - "Vote for me! I didn't vote down a bill to protect our children from pornographers!"
This is why I wish bills to be more concise. Pick a topic, make a bill, pass or don't pass it into law.
I would love it if the people in Congress had enough spine to simply stand up as one and say ENOUGH. We will automatically vote down anything too broad in scope, or loaded with riders.
It's a dream I have. I know. I stand a better chance of being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket. During a blue moon in a leap year. That's a prime number.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Maan, you americans are crazy.
:(
in a good way actually...
here in italy no matter what a politician does, things always stay the same. you don't loose much votes...
really, i admire your interest on the subject. it's not something you'd find here...
anyway, I'd like to know how would you react if:
-a politician tries (twice) to pass a law that would make him and others immune to arrest or anything.
-a politician tries to pass a law with which newspaper can not talk in _any_ way of a trial.
-a politician involved in a trial says the judge is subversive and communist.
-a politician uses his influence to grant jobs in tv shows to other people
can anyone answer me please? i'd like to know how other countries see us
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
I ignore any and all laws that I think I can get away with. Why not? It's worked well for Bush.
Like when I saw an obviously drunk person driving down the road last weekend, and I said nothing about it.
The behaviour of the government over the last several years is convincing people to just ignore the 'rule of law' since it only applies to us little people anyway.
You can pick my pocket and murder innocents in my name, but you can't watch me all the time...
Blar.
a huge part of this bill was providing immunity from prosecution to telecom corporations who broke the law and helped the government break the law while spying on US citizens.
The fourth amendment of the constitution of the United States of America protects citizens from spying without a warrant. End of story.
"Amendment IV"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
These searches of our papers and effects are unreasonable. That RIGHT was violated.
This is unacceptable. My state representative voted NO, but both senators voted yes. That doesn't accurately represent my state.
My senators' votes did not follow their constituents wishes.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Oh, what are his true colors? I was under the impression he was an African American.
Thank God for evolution.
Cue crying baby sound: Waaah, Waaah, Waaaaah. Obama is a putz continually wandering around aimlessly in an attempt to form some kind of cogent thought on each every topic. All the liberal sheep just lined behind this guy and now he's pulled him behind them! Grab your ankles!
I thought he was black...
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
The most important reason to vote against FISA is because for all the arguments and romantic notions that it is a compromise, is the lesser of 2 evils or that Obhama was merely biding his time ignore the fact that a prison no matter how pretty or comfortable is still a prison.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35636leg20080612.html
Gloriously well put.
It's astonishing how anyone can look at the headlines today, laced with verbs like "cave", "surrender", "give in" and "capitulate" and conclude that, boy, Anthony Fremont did a good thing there.
On the other hand, one vote on a measure that passed with more than a two-thirds majority doesn't really mean much of anything. It does make Obama as much of a cowardly weasel as the rest of them, but, seriously, you've got to blame just about the entire Republican party and roughly a third of the Democratic party for this one. They can't all be Chris Dodd, unfortunately.
It's depressing that if all of the Republicans vanished from Congress, we'd still only have a rough majority of sane folk there.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Obama is every much an employee of our media conglomerates as is every other Democrat.
HOPE CHANGE blah blah fuck you homey go back to the ghetto you big eared talking head
By "free", it's meant that the marginal cost to the recipients of said healthcare and education programs is zero, because it's borne by everyone en masse. Now go crawl back under your bridge.
I may or may not vote for Obama - haven't made up my mind - but I sure won't give him any money unless he changes course. This is a third rail issue for me.
Yup, that's right. The solution to this whole FISA-Obama and US 1984 Police state nixon wannabe administration is ebay. Put your american citizen ship on ebay and let an illegal alien buy it. After all its not doing you any good...
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I'm curious as to what you mean by this. The primary problems with healthcare in this country, as far as I know, are that a lot of people don't have it, and it's ridiculously expensive even if you do have it. Medicaid provides healthcare and reimburses providers at ludicrously low rates, which would seem to address both of these concerns. So it seems that there's something wrong with healthcare here that I'm not aware of.
As for the rest, I'd say that a government that did all that is looking to return to the halcyon days of the late 19th century, when nations tottered on the brink of socialist revolution because the accretion of wealth became so damned acute that the people at the bottom of the pyramid were willing to die to change it.
Or perhaps to the 1990s in Russia, where once the government bowed out (in accordance with your utopian vision), it was replaced by a gigantic mafia, which provided all the violence and coercion of government cranked up to eleven without those pesky social services. Funny how that works out in practice. (Oh, but everyone can carry guns there! Too bad the mafia will always outgun you.)
It's funny how whenever libertarian goals get implemented, it ends up looking a lot like an oligarchy--where liberty belongs to everyone in theory, but only the privileged few in practice.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Were she the nominee, I have a sneaking suspicion that their votes would be reversed.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Where were you back in 2001 or 2002, when Bush was hailed as the second coming of Saint Ronnie? I see a lot of this crawling out of the woodwork--now that Bush's policies have led to outcomes that can best be described as ruinous, he's not really a conservative, because No True Conservative could have failed.
The ideology cannot fail; it can only be failed.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When the GP says:
it actually makes a kind of sense!
See, when taxes are cut on the rich, they get richer. This necessitates a cut in services to the rest of us, so we get poorer. But because we're poorer, we pay less in taxes! And as any good libertarian knows, there's nothing on this earth more important than paying less in taxes. And when this glorious, I say glorious plan reaches its throbbing climax of spurting libertarian wonder, we'll be so poor that we won't pay taxes at all--we'll be lucky duckies! Which makes us actually super rich.
So the Republicans really do have our best interests at heart, you see.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I wasn't expecting Obama to be "the black Che Guevara." I was expecting Obama to be a centrist. He's now gone to the significantly to the right of centrist. Obama is now further to the right than Bob Dole was when he ran against Bill Clinton.
Once immunity is granted to Dubya and the telecoms, it would basically take a special case Constitutional Amendment (think Prohibition, and subsequent removal of Prohibition) to void that immunity.
bobbarr2008.com
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
In every other arena, the legislative branch creates policy, and the executive branch implements and enforces it. For instance, Congress makes drugs illegal, and the DEA enforces that. Congress legislates air quality standards, and the EPA makes it happen.
Except... war, in your opinion, seems to be different. Rather than Congress voting that a war should be fought, and the President commanding the execution of that war, it appears that, from your point of view, Congress's job is to rubber-stamp any decisions on when and where to go to war that the Emperor should hand down from the mountaintop. Do I have that about right?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This bill is completely unnecessary. FISA was not broken, this bill could have been tabled indefinitely, and we'd have been fine. Our congress sucks.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
that they know something you don't, and that they are right and you are wrong?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Medicare is federally-administered and for old people; Medicaid is state-administered and for poor people. (There's some overlap--Medicaid pays your Medicare copays if you're poor and old.) It's been a few years since I did paperwork at a doctor's office, where Medicare paid relatively reasonable rates (I think other insurers paid better), and Medicaid paid so little that it was hardly worth sending out the bills for it.
Which one were you talking about?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How does that make it not funny?
I really did think that Obama was the one to bring about real change in this country. As I read somewhere else... "good-bye hope, and welcome back cynicism." What a sucker I was :(
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
See, that's the problem. You voted a certain way because you FEEL something. Try using your head.
"Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future."
Isn't this a good thing, like the only good thing about this bill? Just curious cause it's worded oddly.
The law is good. It's only uncostitutional in the pursuit of traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers. What people forget to see is that the Bill of Rights isn't supposed to be rights for traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers.
It certainly wasn't written by and in respect to traitors, terrorists, and lawbreakers!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Is this really required? Are so many voters so stupid that they've bought into all the fear? Maybe I'm rolling with a very atypical crew, but most people I know have not bought into the fear.
Oh, you're too kind. No, really; you're too kind. When was the last time you heard the fact of the massive civilian deaths in Iraq referred to outside of the initial report? Do you see it on the news? Did you hear it from any of our brave, brave Democratic congresscritters who occasionally mention the dead troops (with appropriate reverence) and the hundreds of billions of bucks flushed away on this monstrosity (also with plenty of reverence)? I'd be quite surprised if you could find someone who made it on CNN or MSNBC or on the editorial page of the Times arguing against the continuation of the war because it's caused levels of deaths that, were they someone else's fault, would be labeled genocide. But no, those are dead brown people, so we as a nation tiptoe around that question, while the corpse-heap grows ever taller.
Also, apropos nothing, this makes three thousand comments for me. It's been an interesting couple of years, Slashdot.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Uncle Sugar doesn't have the time or the inclination to spy on a poseur like you or your worthless friends. Your "radical" politics are a joke and nobody gives a shit.
Seriously dude - NOBODY gives a shit about you or what you think.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ridicules
The Dictionary is your friend.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Look over HERE at this shiny UFO distraction thing so you won't look over THERE and see Americans agree with Kucinich's stands on all the issues at 60-70% rate.
Are you kids being forced to grow up without health insurance while you are waving that stupid shiny distraction thing?
The only thing Kucinich ever said was he's seen something he didn't know what it was. So have you. So have I. That's what "unidentified" means.
He was labeled a conservative when he was elected. When he was popular, every bit of the conservative movement that could speak heaped praise on him. Now that he's not, he's being disowned by the same people who really liked him when he was popular, who are now claiming that, since he failed, he was never a conservative, and they never said he was. It's grossly dishonest.
Whether or not you happen to have some wacky Platonic ideal of conservatism in your head has little to do with the actual conservative movement in this country.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What the hell are you talking about? There were no loopholes before. There was the suggestion that there were loopholes put forward by the very people who BROKE the LAW and were facing up to 40 civil suits. Their claimed "loopholes" didn't stand a chance in an actual court (even a secret one) and everyone knows it [apparently, not everyone]. If those loopholes really existed there would be NO NEED for retroactive immunity because they'd get off anyway.
All this bill did was deny U.S. citizens their day in court.
I have no 'h' key you insensitive clod!
20 years of studying the U.S. Constitution, and the first chance Obama gets as party leader to defend the U.S Constitution, Obama defecates all over the U. S. Constitution, then burns it.
Obama definitely screwed this one up. How could anyone support wire-tapping without a warrant? That's insane. We should have voted Clinton. At least she got the basics right.
As opposed to the humanitarian disaster that will occur when whatever puppet regime we set up falls? Do you have some sort of realistic idea as to how the occupation can be ended without some kind of humanitarian collapse over there? If so, why wasn't it done years ago? If not, why is it a good idea to keep occupying the place?
And please, drop the "humanitarian" bit. Supporting an invasion that's killed a million people and created at least twice as many refugees bars you from playing that card.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If this is the only issue that was swaying all you social-politically contious techno-geeks votes, then it's a good thing you dont vote at all. You don't think the government hasn't been spying in this country all along then your crazy. Obama and associates got a compromise on what was a larger bill than anyone here seems to care to recognize. Everyone seems to want their on agenda placated to, but to be a President ALL aspects of every issue must be weighed and that means someone is not going to like the outcome. If your view of the issues is too narrow to see past your own personal wants on one point, then maybe it's best you turn in your voter registration card because no matter how high you wave it, there's a chance the polititions still would trade you a cookie for it.
Hey there Barack Obama
You've got my vote cause you've gotta white mamma.
Even though your dad is black, and he smokes crack,
You're still the man for me!
How about why not?
Whatever side the guys that were defending apartheid... that side was the terrorists.
I don't care if Darth Vader, Karl Marx and Ho Chi Minh and the Red Riders were on the other side, if they were trying to defeat apartheid, they were the good guys.
Yes, Obama screwed up (and lost my vote). But saying it's sort of okay just because McCain is just as much of a screw up is just plain wrong. They're both on a race to the bottom. Both of them. If we're lucky we'll get the lesser of two evils, but it's still evil.
Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton voted against the FISA bill.
War spending comes from magical pony money! We need to be super hard-headed about spending money on things like doctors and hospitals and roads and bridges and research and the environment, but war is practically free!
Does anyone remember that peace dividend we were supposed to score from the end of the Cold War? Anyone?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
the greater of two evils starts winning. If everyone always voted for the lesser of two evils instead of holding themselves politics, the evils would diminish instead of grow.
It's about principle. And since Americans have none these days, things will continue to get worse and worse. If you vote for evil, then not only will you get evil, but you've given your mandate to and are responsible for all the evil acts they commit.
But if you insist on thinking of it strategically, then consider how riled up and energized your base gets when the other party is in power. It's usually good for the cause to be the underdog as we're seeing now with the approaching Democratic takeover. With this in mind, you might not consider it such a risk to vote your consciouses, knowing that the other guy getting in can benefit you too. I for one would rather my party lose than for it to stop representing me.
Okay, your vote may or may not count... depending on how screwed over the actual election system in your local area may be. We have seen situations where paper ballots were found discarded in the trash before... millions of them... and we've seen were electronic voting has been (and I'm being generous here) "error prone." But that's not what I'm trying to say here.
What I'm trying to say is that once someone is in their office, they do pretty much whatever they please regardless of what the people have interest in. They do whatever "the money" tells them to do.
It's a damned shame. We need a system that separates money from politicians. I'd be for voting to give them a ridiculously generous stipend FOR LIFE if that's what it takes to get politicians and money interests separated... so long as they are never allowed BACK into the private sector and so long as they are never allowed to accept money from anything other than individuals.
Can you explain to me how a loose confederation of states like you envision can possibly stand up to forces like multinational corporations or emergent mafias? How does the massive weakening of the state that I describe differ substantially from the massive weakening of the state that you describe?
Could you go into a bit more detail about why a strong federal government is "stupid", and why the states "need" to be independent?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Obama, pandering, said that the Supreme Court was wrong. He has no authority, nor will he have authority, as President to change this sort of thing. I suppose that rhetoric matters, but I can't muster much outrage about it. Defending child rapists from the death penalty is about as politically feasible as raising the federal gas tax while ending the war on drugs. I suppose he didn't have to say anything, but I don't really see how it matters anyway.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Obama will appoint judges with this set of views. Why? Because he's a Democrat, and he'll appoint Democrats, and Democrats have this set of views. Does it matter if he, a Democrat, expresses views outside of this set? Of course not, because Democrats have this set of views. It makes a perfect little logical loop.
Take heed, folks; this is why caving in doesn't make you look more palatable to the other guys.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I know the guy made his bones by pursuing lost causes, and that's why he seems not to know when to call it a day, but the rest of you people have no excuse.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The short story is that the odds of someone you care about dying as a result of a terrorist attack here in the US are quite slim (e.g., even in 2001 there were something like 40,000 fatalities from traffic accidents and a little more than 3000 from terrorism in the US).
That's 3000 families my heart goes out to. True, though, you mention how America is land of the free... I would not know what that means, and neither do I totally wish to find out - while I do no believe humans should live in totalitarian conditions, I still think people have come to draw this grand illusion of total free will. The problem is people do not spread this evenly... it is your free will to wish to murder someone, but it is against their free will to live to truly do so. Freedom cannot exist because people will always encroach upon others' freedom. Such is the world. Occasionally having a government agent hearing a weekly call home between mother and son is hardly "removing my freedom" so much. Maybe it's their freedom to do what it takes to keep their "land of the free" safe, like the patriots they wish to be?
Maybe it's just me...
Hell, it worked for Brewster's Millions. Seriously though, I would love nothing more than to see a "None of the Above" option on all ballots. Politician's only care about people who vote, but there are millions out there who would be more than happy to show up if there were only an option to register their discontent. And how sweet would these results be on election day:
12% McCain
12% Obama
76% None of the Above
No stinking Republican or Democrat would ever be able to claim a mandate over us ever again since neither side would ever be able to capture a majority of voters.
As for those "mass protests," the government will likely have a lot more on their hands to deal with if they continue to ignore the best interest of this country and the will of the people. Why do you think crap like FISA gets passed in the first place? They know what's coming and it has nothing to do with terrorism.
There's got to be some Ron Paul freak out there willing to blow mod points on a reference to the actual Constitution.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Let's be clear about this. The Immunity was added this way because the administration says that while the Law Enforcement Tools were important, the immunity was more important. They were willing to turn down the law enforcement tools, to get the immunity.
I agree - it *is* more important to deny the principle that when the President orders you to break the law, you are allowed to break the law, than it is to stop another terrorist attack.
Let's make this clear - I lost friends in the Pentagon *and* the World Trade Center, and I would *rather* get hit by Al-Qaeda, *again*, than to have established that the President can order you to break the law.
Frankly, I consider this immunity an another in a series of absolute wrongs foisted on our country by cowards and traitors.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I feel that Obama caving is a kick-in-the-gutt to those of us who fight to preserve the freedoms afforded every citizen, including the right to free speech so long as preserved by law.
It is unethical in my view to support a President's law that covers the butts of his collective interests, no matter what the justification. The President usurped the law, and pushed forward a bill when caught - essentially pulling a Nixon.
Throw in the removal of the voice of the people and you Washington and the White House flailing about. Most important of all, it extinguishes the right to privacy and gives the President to "do as he sees fit" without regard to laws or the freedoms implied by the Constitution.
The removal of the freedoms and bypassing of laws is the height of paranoia and fear-mongering by this administration. I am an independent who was generally interested in Obama, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who allows the President wiretap, and cover whomever he chooses.
I feel sickened by his reversal and subsequent endorsement of the FISA bill. I am sorely, bitterly and tremendously disappointed in Obama, and now neither candidate will receive my vote this November.
This vote of Obama's really tears me up. He obviously thinks untrammeled executive power is a good thing if he's going to be the executive, regardless of its effect on civil liberties. There is no way he can spin this to me as a good vote. On the other hand, I desperately want to keep John McCain's paws off of the supreme court over the next 4-8 years. There are a lot of old liberals barely hanging onto the bench by their wrinkled, scrawny, arthritic claws that should not be replaced by a Republican nominee.
But both major parties continue to trample the constitution in pursuit of their own power. It's reached the point where it has the effect of collusion between the parties even if no actual collusion actually takes place (kind of like the pricing on airline tickets). There is obviously an unspoken understanding that the Bush administration will not be investigated at any future date for any violations of law or human rights whatsoever. Remember when the big issue was the Cheney task force and how it was used to set national energy policy? It's only gotten worse since then. The republicans have used national security as a lever to push the democrats so far to the right that it's a legitimate question whether the USA is a fascist state. This law only reinforces that impression.
I have to vote Libertarian in at least some races to send the message that things have gone too far. Whether that includes the presidency, I still haven't decided. After this vote I certainly can't believe in Obama as a representative of a "new kind" of politics, but even the same old democratic platform is still more appealing than McCain's.
We are the 198 proof..
Obama's just another stinking politician. There was never any reason to expect otherwise. He's not just some guy from out of left field who came along with a happy message and got lucky. To become the DNC's anointed one, he had to make deals and secret promises and had to receive the blessings of the moneyed interests that have been in control for many decades. He's as much an insider as any other politrickster at this point.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
Very soon after the Constitution was passed, in 1798, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that the prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal cases, not to civil suits. The government remains entirely free to retroactively change civil liability. Since this has been solid precedent for over 200 years, and referred to repeatedly, it's quite unlikely to be interpreted differently now.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Welcome to the world of politics. As much as I like Obama, one must never forget he is still a politician.
It just took the flag pin and now this for more people to get it. Unlike Hillary, Barack waited until after the primaries to start making the huge mistakes.
The immunity only covers CIVIL liability, criminal liability is still on the table, but with the 'leaders' we have, I cant see anyone bringing criminal charges against the TELCO and Bush et al unless the next president makes it an issue. (which they should)
So chin up, Obama isn't perfect, but aside from a revolution to replace the government, he will be better than what we could get with McCain or what we have now with the moron from Connecticut via Texass.
We didn't lose our rights overnight, and it will take time and effort to regain them. That is if people start worrying more about the future of America and less about gas prices, American Idol, and gay marriage.
in a democracy, you never get a president who appeals to you greatly, you always get a president who appeals to you weakly (if at all). the reason for this is that someone only appeals to you greatly if they have a lot of affinity for your own values
but being that your set of values are a small tiny subset of the range of value sets out there, then if someone appeals to you greatly, that means they only appeal to a small number of people, and therefore are never going to be elected. get it yet?
so the job of a presidential candidate, to appeal to as many people as possible, is to pick a mixture of values that appeals to as many people as possible. but by covering all of these bets, this naturally means you weaken your appeal to any one given small subset of values, in order to cover as many subsets as possible
this is the inevitable truth of democracy: you will always, forever, only get a president who appeals to you very weakly, because it is the job of the candidate to appeal to as many people as possible in order to win the presidency. therefore, EVERY eection, FOREVER, consists of picking the lesser of two evils. this is mathematically inevitable. pleae, get used to it
this is why morons who vote for fringe candidates only weaken whatever cause they care about. in their blindness to embrace a cnadidate who appeals to them greatly, but can never win (because any candidate who appeals to anyone greatly naturally only appeals to a small subset of a population), they therefore are wasting a vote that would otherwise go to the candidate who appeals to them weakly, and ensure that the candidate who appeals to them least wins! morons. you always ALWAYS vote strategically in an election. you never, NEVER get your golden candidate. your golden candidate can NEVER win. it is simple mathematical inevitability
the question is simply then: why are you so stupid not to know this, and why do you take it so personally?
why are you so stupid as to expect that you will ever get a president who appeals to you greatly? why do you waste your vote on fringe candidates? why are you so shocked that your golden boy obama is proving to be SMART as well as charismatic (hint: his smarts is why he tracking to the center, appealing to you WEAKLY, instead of strongly like he used to. waaaah)
everyone takes it so personally. its politics you morons, not a romance
this is the way it has always been, and always will be in a democracy, forever. get used to it. grow a brain. don't take it so personally, it just means you're blind, dumb and selfish about the unmoveable absolute rules of politics
and yet you morons are always part of the process. wasting your vote on perot (ensuring clinton won), wasting your vote on nader (ensuring bush won), wasting your vote on kucinich and ron paul, etc.
and so, i guess the lesson is for me: also part of politics are the committed partisans. the fools who will always vote blindly idealistically, never intelligently and strategically. and you are just damaged goods for the shrewd politician to route around
the permanently clueless. so idealistic and naive about how democracy works
btw, to preempt some of you even stupider than the idealistic and naive:
1. democracy is still a better form of government than any else.
2. also: triparty and quadparty systems have their own shortcomings, such as ridiculous coalitions between ideologically opposed parties in order to retain party. go ahead, ask any german about greens getting in bed with the far right
3. furthermore, the democrats and the republicans ARE different parties and DO represent different values. to explain it to you in parable: two peaks in the rocky mountains viewed from out on the great plains are the same. but in a mountain valley in the rockies, the two peaks couldn't be more different. in other words, if you see the republicans and the democrats as the same, you yourself are so far out on the ideological bell curve, the real issue is that you yourself are so out of touch wi
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well after reading everyones' comments, I can now conclude that Obama just made the biggest mistake of his campaign to date. All of his other controversies just led me to roll my eyes and say the press is taking fluff too seriously. But apparently, a lot of you actually thought that Obama was the real deal, representing the little guy, instead of the status quo. I've read comment after comment here by people who've been shocked back into apathy.
You can bet that the media won't report this as much of a misstep. No, they'll probably conclude that it was good for him to do. But this is the first time I've seen his base start to wobble in any real way. Even more so than with Jeremiah Wright. I had always assumed that he had it locked up, but now I wonder if McCain might not have a shot after-all.
Obama could have easily stuck to his guns and further energized his base. Republicans wouldn't have been any more likely to turn out for McCain if Obama had voted against it. All he needs to do is hold onto his base and the election is easily his. McCain will never be able to turn out his base in significant numbers unless Obama chose Hillary as his running mate or we get another 9/11 style event. But with a steady enough build-up, it only takes a few stumbles by Obama for McCain to get within striking distance.
Either way, we're screwed. The next president will take all of the totalitarian powers that Bush had and expand upon them, without regard for the next guy who'll inherit those powers. The congress will continue to rubber-stamp it all and our standard of living will continue to decline. There's no turning back now. There is only starting over.
And you never have to worry about who will win!
So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
It's barely possible that this would be justifiable if we lived in some bizarro world where once this bill had been voted on, no other bill on this subject could ever be offered again. But we don't, and so this apology for Obama's behavior is crap.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Did you balance your decision with ALL the other things he stands for that you believe in?
If Obama rolls over on one issue the moment things get a little tough, why should I believe that he won't do the same for "ALL the other things he stands for"?
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
This is where I'm headed, too, plus my Obama vote goes to a third-party candidate whose views match mine (and I'm not taking crap from anyone for it--grrrr).
The truth is that our politicians are spineless or bought, and they've made themselves irrelevant. The only real power I feel that I have is to support organizations that do support my values, who may have some way to influence things.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Be specific. Exactly HOW is it better?
From everything that I can see, it is WORSE.
Exactly!
You do NOT have a right to my vote simply because you're running AGAINST someone.
You have to EARN my vote and if someone else is better at earning it, then that person deserves it.
It's called "principles". I you have them, you understand.
If you don't, you'll never understand.
It's about keeping your principles. NOT about winning elections.
This is an utterly shameless act of cowardice. It is an act of approval of a felony committed by the Republic-nts. I used to think Obama was different, not any more.
You really think no one is going to spy on their ex over this? It's just a few keystrokes. There's no oversight, so no problem! The worst that will happen is a 'naughty, naughty' from a complicent superior.
People are people and they like to play. They will do as much of 'whatever they want' as they think they can get away with, which is probably a lot.
I personally don't trust those listening in with so much unchecked power. A random sample of them is not likely better than a random sample of anyone else in the world, and people have a high suckage rate.
I have donated money on a few occasions to the Obama campaign, and I too am horribly upset with his FISA cave-in.
While there is no way in hell I will vote for McCain, Obama is now certain not to receive any further money from me.
once you heard about FDR's court-packing scheme. Not one politician will agree with anyone 100% of the time.
We're at the start of a long journey to make the US government work again for the people. Do you think that process stops with Obama? Obama is the starting place. A big Democratic win in November means that a whole bunch of people will come into office, people we can push toward protecting civil liberties. Our position as their supporters, even their donors, will give us much more power over them. Maybe we can get a few things done.
Vote Republican, and you vote for more of the same, you vote to disenfranchise yourself. You think McCain and his crowd will ever listen to your concerns about the rights of citizens in a free society?
This election, like any other, the choice is not good vs. evil, it is the lesser of two evils.
To fix this America doesn't need regime change, America needs Systematic Change. The first step of this needs to be to abolish the two-party system and constitutionally bar gerrymandering.
What the heck makes this even remotely relevant to IT? The "Messiah" isn't coming to bring us new servers or solve all our browser compatibility issues. He's just another two faced politician who will promise one thing to his base then rush to the center to try to win the votes of people who won't vote for him no matter what he says, and ends up infuriating the people who would have voted for him. Insert whatever name you want. They're all the same. I used to think that people who didn't vote got the government they deserve... crap. But it doesn't really matter who's the president or who's in charge of congress. We still get crap. Everyone hated those damn Republicans who took over the Senate. So we threw them out and elected Democrats. Now their approval rating is 9%. The lowest in history. They're all the same. Throw them all out.
Obama has done three things that have made me second-guess my support for him and this isn't the worst. The compromise bill does grant retroactive immunity to the telcoms. Obama was against this, but you don't get to vote on every part of a bill every time when you're a senator. Bush greatly expanded the president's powers under his term using executive orders and no one has challenged him. I believe he should be impeached and thrown in jail, but that doesn't seem to be going to happen. Letting the lawsuits against the telcoms go would do a great deal to bring about justice, it would at least make people weary of taking the president's word for it when asked by him to break a law in secret. However, the protections in the new bill should narrow the powers of the executive enough to make it clear that a law was begin broken and to enable easy impeachment if it happens again. There were actually three senate votes to amend the bill to remove or weaken the telcom immunity and Obama voted for all three amendments (which failed). He figured at the end though that the bill as a whole was worth passing, even with the immunity intact.
One other thing was Obama's refusal to use public financing, which he has always claimed he supports. This isn't that big since I don't believe the positions are contradictory. For instance, I think someone could oppose tax cuts while still cashing their refund check. You can still play by the rules even if you wish them to be changed. When you look at the choice of financing a campaign with $80 million or $250 million, what would you choose?
The worst thing though was simply a chance to stand up and show his character. It hasn't been mentioned against Obama to my knowledge, which I find regrettable. When one of McCain's advisers was asked hypothetically how a terrorist attack would affect the presidential campaign, he replied that he thought that it would help McCain due to his foreign policy experience. EVERYTHING I saw in the media seemed to say that it was a stupid remark, but I don't see how since he was directly replying to the question asked. McCain's quote in the media even seemed to agree: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear." That's like asking a police officer if an increase in crime would mean their budget would increase. Certainly the officer doesn't wish an increase in crime, but they would get more funding. Why cannot people see this? This is what an Obama spokesman said:
This is a completely misleading analysis of the actual conversation and would make me regret ever voting for Obama, except Hillary would probably be just as bad. As it stands, I have to question Obama's character for letting a spokesman make such a statement without rebuke. My image of him is forever tarnished, I wish he simply would have said this:
bah, it's stupid. As usual the realities of Washington rule the day. He's not a superman, but he IS a progressive. He's also a pragmatist.
The democrats (a class of which I am nominally a member) can not seem to figure out that "running to the middle" is a loser strategy. It just turns you into a nobody.
Since nobody completely agrees with anybody, everybody will vote for the somebody before they vote for the nobody.
For every supporter you pander to, you lose two supporters you already have. Doesn't matter what side you are coming from.
In short, at the center of the pool, you will find a drain
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Proportional Representation
Its definately not perfect, but its possibly the best thing politically to happen in New Zealand in the last 100 years. At least those small parties and individuals that attract a percentage of the vote now have some slight power. Also, when you have two main parties and no-one wants to vote for either, they end up being hamstrung by not having clear majorities, which makes it harder for them to pass new laws - which is something I approve of. The less they do, the less they screw up...
apt captcha I got - 'unrest'!
You give a little, I give a little. It's called compromise. That's what this man, Obama, is all about. It turns out that active movement away from partisanship is really what he meant by 'change'. Apparently he does not see compromise as a forced triangulation like it was for Clinton who kept having to bow down to the GOP-packed Congress. Obama is initiating these compromises on his own, forcing a redefinition of progress. So this FISA thing is part of his larger strategy to unify the country.
When you talk about national issues, please don't go emulating Bush transforming every policy into dichotomies. There IS a gray area here. I'm not saying that Obama's vote can't be bought or that Obama is right, but seriously this is not a direct attack on the Constitution. Obama is not spying on anyone at least not yet. You saw how filled with glee the vote made Bush who really has been violating the Constitution. I would venture to guess that the Democrats did it for some backroom favors either from Bush's telco friends or the GOP side of Congress.
Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity;
OK, so he's a liar too.
there's simply nothing yuo can do...
Well, for one he could have voted "Nay" like Hillary Clinton did. Or like Sherrod Brown from Ohio did.
I'll lay you money Ohio is a harder win for a Democrat than Illinois.
Yeah, I really want a "leader" who can go with the flow instead of taking a principled stand. God knows America could really use a waffle right now.
1) It closed many loopholes that allowed the warrentless wiretaps in the first place.
Warrentless wiretaps were never "allowed". The President just decided to break the law. That's not a "loophole."
2) Requires further wiretaps to follow at least some process (process isn't perfect but its better than the lack of process before).
No, there was a very clear process before: It was called "Get a warrant from the FISA court."
1) Provides retroactive immunity to telecoms, it doesn't provide forward immunity though.
Congress de facto did provide forward legal immunity by legalizing the warrantless wiretaps.
2) Expands wiretapping provisions over the old laws, but as I said earlier previously the old laws were ignored completely... Shrugs.
You know why they ignored the laws? Because they knew that Congress was a pack of bitches who would instantly bend over in the unlikely event that this lawless behaviour ever saw the light of day. Which is precisely why all these 'safeguards' that imbeciles keep bringing up in defense of this bill are so meaningless. If Congress not only refuses to investigate but actively protects the executive branch from the law, then the executive branch will do whatever it wants no matter what pretty nicities got injected into this bill for cosmetic effect. Idiots!
For me, as of today, I consider the covenant of government here in the US of A in abeyance until the constitution is restored. There is no longer a country here to be a citizen of.Natural law is now in force.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
This bill clearly hurt us. It hurt the Constitution. The Bush administration has helped tear out huge chunks of the constitution, and congress has been far too eager to help. However, what is the choice? Realistically we have Obama and McCain, right? I am sure not going to vote for McCain. At least Obama I think may come around. McCain has clearly lost his sense of direction and individuality. Someone is pulling his strings, and he is no more than a puppet. Obama is close to losing me, but I have no where else to turn. He had better shape up, and start defending Americans and the Constitution.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you vote against it, your opponents will pick out all the sensible provisions of the bill that no sane person could disgree with
That makes no sense. The Democrats control the Senate. They could have fixed the bill if they wanted to.
Why could Obama not convince the Democrats in the Senate to fix the bill? Lack of leadership, clearly. And now he thinks he wants to lead the country? Ha.
I voted for him in the primary, but I will vote for McCain in November. I don't agree with some of his positions, but he shows true leadership.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
It's a simple disagreement. Show us where you get 20 years.
Infuriate left and right
OH BOY!
McCain may be a washed-up, wacked-up, busted-up ex-Navy pilot, ex-POW-Traitor.
But, the SOB is dependable, and you get-what-you-get with him.
Obama has been lurred into revealing that he covets power, power as long as he is ... immune ... and his hinchmen ... ATT et al .. are well paid for their dirty work ... dirty work? ... well, to trash all of those files that point to Obama ... and those files, once renamed, to point to ... Jon Doe (Muslim US citizen).
Immunity ... Ah immunity ,,. even the Presindent of the United States of America is immune to the local and municipal laws of the District of Columbia ... the State of Maryland ... the United States of America, even the Constitution of the United States of America.
What a deal!
The President of the Good Old USA, can order ... a murrder ... a robbery ... so if there is a Rolex Watch at Macy's .. which he covets sooo dearly ... no Macy's dumb-f**k security guard's life matters.
Obama is not Muslim ethnicity (in the 1936-45 Germany, we would say "Race") and he is every bit a good United States of America Citizen.
But ... Power Tempts .. even the lure of power, the psychie of power ... yet not yet given ... and He ... bit hard on the Tit.
Will the Tit givith ... or will it be dry.
Toodles
I'm also concerned about his idea that "faith" will solve America's problems. I use quotes because he actually means major organized religions and not faith in general. I doubt he has atheists in mind when he used the word. I have strong faith in evolution and the scientific process but lesser faith in god, FSM, teapots and unicorns.
I really hope he's just saying that to court the religious right.
So what he is really saying is he voted yes for a bill that does nothing. All domestic
wiretaps had to go through the FISA court to be legal before this bill.
Got Code?
That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point
I love the guy here on /. a couple of years ago (I wish he would read this post and say it himself or point out his post of a few years back) who wrote, and I paraphrase:
During my life I had not understood the stereotype of a bunch of ornery OLD guys, outside a grocery store, or an old porch railing against politicians, or Washington "whore" politicians.
A few facts are clear to me now that I am older. But all can be boiled down to one axiom.
All politicians are whores. Left, Right and Center.
Barack Obama refused negative campaigning, admirable. It cost him during the primaries and yet he gambled on. Admirable. But now as you say, he is going Clintonian. To wit, s/he will say what ever it takes win. I do not blame him, Republicans will say anything to win, as the end justifies the means to that bunch off assholes! Anyone remember the Jon Stewart-Tucker Carlson CNN gem.
So Obama seems brave, and Obama may be brave and principled, and Obama may be a leader to speak the truth and lead from truth but who knows??? I fell for that during Bill Clinton 1992! I rationalized: Clinton was just saying that to get elected but he will govern honestly. Clinton gave the nation the DMCA amongst other interest group non sense. He was in love with Hollywood -- see Bloodworth-Thomason's?
Forward to 2000, a carpet bagger spouse rolls into New York, claims the right to run for US Senate having never lived there, wins. Within months of election the New York Times runs insider sources stories describing the laying of groundwork for Senator Clinton's presidency run post her next election to the US Senate!
IOW, all politicians are whores. The longer I live the truer it is.
But there is one guy who I give kudos. He put his money where his mouth is. Russ Feingold, US Senate, Democrat.
So what am I saying? Obama seems like JF Kennedy. Odd are against it though. But you know what:
Dude. You got a +5 for pointing out that the moderation pool is full of easy marks. Hats off to you.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Relax, I live in New York State so my vote doesn't really mean anything anyway. Well, yes it does. I'm not really that cynical. But realistically short of Senator Obama naming Osama Bin Ladin as his running mate I don't see McCain winning our 31 votes in the electoral college.
I suppose I should never say never but as it stands right now he has lost my trust. He reversed himself on a fairly explicit pledge for no obvious reason (it was going to pass anyway) and on an issue that I consider to be one of the most important of all. If he is willing to "compromise" on FISA is he also willing to compromise on universal health care? The education reforms he's talked about? The tax cuts he's promised? Network neutrality? Why should I believe a word he has to say?
I've written the campaign and requested a refund of monies I've donated (almost $500). If they actually give it to me I'm going to donate all of that money to the EFF and ACLU. Regardless of which lever I wind up pulling in November, Obama has lost me as a contributor and volunteer.
I suppose if he wins in November we'll have four years to find out where his actual intentions lie. I can't help but remember that Bush ran as a "uniter" on the platform of a humble non-nation-building foreign policy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The Constitution isn't a liberal issue, it's an American issue. And there isn't a single voter constituency that has been clamoring for telecom immunity. Not one. The only people demanding it are neocons and idiot pundits, and Obama just made it clear that appealing to those people is more important than the people who made him the nominee in the primary or those who would vote for him in the general.
If Bush does pardon the crooks it will solidify the idea that he is the most self serving and corrupt president since Nixon. And even as corrupt as Nixon was, even he cared more about America than winning and in the end he did the only good thing for America and resigned.
That's because the scots have their own peculiar moral code that encourages all manner of reiving -- if it is done well, with style and wits.
We need more scots-irish presidents, like Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Grant, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton.
They want to dismantle most of the federal government in name of rights and freedom, yet have no problem with people getting fucked over by businesses and state governments.
Just a side note here, I think McCain thinks independently and acts on his convictions... which is what scares me about him. If he gets elected, I hope to God he's a spineless waffler with no core, but I sincerely doubt it.
I kick yo fuckin ass bro
well for fear of being a flame troll, there is bobbarr2008.com , okay flame on!
Obama speaks much more eloquently than Bush, but they have both said whatever it takes to get elected, and said a lot of things with a lot of indignation.
I'd bet that part of the reason Obama voted for the bill was that He's currently in the senate and hopes to be in the white house next year. Bills like this leach power from the legislative and judicial branches and give the executive significantly more power.
Hey, both HRC and Obama voted "yes" on the Dodd Amendment -- the critical piece which would have bagged retroactive immunity entirely.
Except of course that the Dodd amendment was used as a sham by Harry Reid, who did his usual bullshit of requiring 60 votes for anything the Republicans don't like but legislation that Republicans want only requires 50 votes. So the Dodd amendment required 60 votes, and was merely a tool for tools like Obama to make a show of opposing immunity but then voting for the FISA bill with immunity in it. Sort of like the Democrats who voted for cloture on the Alito nomination and then voted against his confirmation.
And yes, Obama voted for cloture on the issue of immunity. And then he voted to send the bill to Bush with immunity in it. Hillary voted against cloture and against immunity, but that's because she's out of the race for the nomination. Her entire national security record has been to vote with the right wing (see: Kyl-Lieberman), and there isn't a doubt in my mind that she would have sold out were she the nominee.
Yes the new FISA is an abomination, but he could have done nothing to prevent its passage and, had he tried, would have been promptly sandbagged by the fear-mongers on the right.
They'll do that anyway, only now they can also call him a flip flopper at the same time. Democrats like Tom Dashle bent over backwards to accommodate every right wing demand "to take the issue off the table", yet were driven from office anyway. Obama seems to have slept through the 2006 elections, where Democrats regained Congress by finally opposing the Iraq war, and has gone back to the losing playbook from 2002.
No way, I'd argue. Look, 2/3 of America thinks he's still "exotic", a stranger, "not one of us". He just has to increase peoples' comfort level with him first, and since most of the population still think that FISA is essential to thwarting terrorists, fighting this (losing) FISA battle right now just works against the perception problem
You're rationalizing. There isn't a single voter constituency that's been pushing for immunity. Not one. There is, however, a great deal of disgust directed at Congress for not standing up to the Bush administration. Obama could have easily made the argument he should have made, that 'those that trade liberty for security lose both.' He could have also pointed out the work he's done to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R. But nope, he decided to do some pointless triangulating that his only going to backfire on him, by costing him support and opening himself up to (true) charges of flip flopping.
Keep November in mind, please!
Keep the Constitution in mind, please. We've had great violations before, like Lincoln's suspending of habeas corpus; we were in a time of rebellion but suspending the writ is up to Congress, not the Executive. Or Executive Order 9066, in which Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps. But other than Jim Crow, I can't think of a single example of a gross violation of basic Constitutional rights going on for so long or to be so accepted.
What's important is that BO -- not McCain -- be elected in the fall.
We've lasted over 200 years because we decided to be a nation ruled by law rather than a nation ruled by men. Now that iron clad parts of the Constitution have become optional guidelines, my faith in our ability to endure another 200 years has diminished significantly. Before the 2006 elections, the right wing was speaking openly of imprisoning journalists that published evidence of government lawbreaking, like the original NY Times story breaking the news of the warrantless wiretapping. If government officials are free to spy without warrants and torture people without any consequences, what will happen if we are attacked again?
And McCain winning wouldn't be such a bad thing, so long as Obama l
...which retroactively protects their henchmen from the law is fascist. Pure and simple.
Obama did not object, Obama is just as fascist as the administration you have right now.
What, oh what brainwashing on earth makes you Americans tell yourselves that choosing between democrat and republican would be a real choice.
As long as you vote Democrat or Republican, you can stay at home in the first place.
Wake up already, or you will be a banana republic in the margin of the history books a few hundred years from now.
Regards,
RHK
Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
Whoever the incumbent is, regardless of your party affiliation, vote for the other candidate.
Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Also, with the immunity, you have closed the one route people saw to get at how FISA ('78) was circumvented/abused. Does Obama know of an alternate route?
The whole thing is moronic. If a guy breaks a law, you don't let it pass and "make it up" by passing a new "more explicit" law - you go after the guy for breaking the law. The failure is not that of vague law, but it's the failure to enforce an existing law and prosecute the violators - that's you spineless Democrats. And we aren't talking about shoplifting, it's only the Constitution protecting the citizen from the tyranny of the gov't.
It's like the comment on NYTimes: Al Queda blows up coupla buildings. Congress "retaliate" by blowing up the Constitution.
With such Congress, who needs Al Queda? Bin Laden might as well shoot "mission accomplished" posters and retire now.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
His dad was black, his mom's white, so how does that make him more black than white?
This is a red-herring argument, and a wrong one.
First, the Democrats are in the majority of the Senate. So if they could have defeated this bill, then they could have defeated any other bill. It sounds like the Republicans are doing the Dems a favor by allowing them to pass a "less-evil" bill. But everybody gets one vote, and each Senator is accountable for each vote.
Second, the basic FISA law was already existing. If all amendments are defeated, it is NOT true that all surveillance is gone, or that the nation is "bare" as Feinstein put it. All it would mean is that the technical issues would not be addressed for the moment, and the NSA would have to get a FISA warrant - which is a GOOD thing.
Dominant genes regarding skin pigmentation?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Frankly, I don't think most "flip-floppers" change their positions at all. I think they simply lie about their positions based on whatever they think will get them elected.
I could respect someone who honestly changed his mind based on new information, but I have absolutely no respect for someone who changes his spin just to get into power.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I've been a Obama supporter since the 2004 Democratic Convention and have been talking to many about how Obama is the change we needin government I religiously wore an Obama button everywhere and since I am white I had to withstand many racist comments and insults for my support. Unfortunately that support including my VOTE has just changed and I will probably vote for a third party candidate maybe Nader. The reason for this is Obama's recent Congressional vote on the FISA bill. I cannot believe Obama sold out to the corporate world and Washington Status Quo so easily. If Obama thinks he must reposition his viewpoints closer to center he is wrong. the closer to center that he moves the more likely he is to lose the election. Obama won the primary because Americans want CHANGE and Obama promised change. Allowing the government to spy on us without warrants and giving immunity to the telecommunications corporations as well as voting to end the discussion on the issue is in flagrant opposition to all the things he has been promising Obama is a hypocrite and I will now tell everyone I know that I have changed my position and no longer support Obama. I wish I would of voted for Hillary now because she and Schumer voted for the people of America on this important issue not in favor of policies carried out by the BUSH administration which are destroying our Constitutional Rights! Obama needs to strengthen his spine and speak out for the people at all costs and risk. Only in this way will he win. Too bad he is starting to look like a Kerry rerun If Kerry had the courage to stand up and say I will end the WAR and not espouse a surge and continued presence in Iraq he may have won but we all know history. Obama is on the threshold of changing history but if he back pedals and panders to the conservatives he will lose. McCain has most of the Conservative vtes already locked up we need the independents and the disenfranchised to rise and take this country back. From Obama's vote on FISA i can see that he is not up to the task now. I am mortified now about the future of the United States of America and though i have merely considered moving to Canada, I now think that it is a decision I must consider very seriously. Obama is a weak willed sell-out and America will not elect him if he continues to make hypocritical votes on the Congressional floor. My Obama button is now entering the garbage can as I end this letter Goodbye and Good Riddance Obama!
he lost my vote on it, I emailed him emmediatly and called as well.
It's funny, I just starting watching 24 last month. The president on the show, David Palmer, makes me think of Obama. Except he wouldn't compromise... Vote Palmer '08!
I emailed the Obama campaign about this situation, about how he's losing voters over this issue and needs to explain his actions publicly, and got this response:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
Well, if you compare him to his farther I'd say he looks more white than black. In any case, he was raised by a white mother among predominately white people, so I refraise my question: are you always black if you're not completely white? (no chinaman-jokes please)
I think I do remember people saying that it was impossible that a million dead civilians and several million refugees would result from an invasion and ensuing occupation, but I think they were in the pro-war camp. That's some corpse-alicious progress, there.
The Iraqi people (71% as of last year) want the US to withdraw its forces. The US has not withdrawn, and shows no sign of doing so. The recent agreement splitting up Iraq's oil reserves among foreign oil companies is grotesquely unpopular among the people whose resources are being stolen from under their feet, but quite popular among those who own the companies.
Given all this, it's blindingly obvious--unless you have some reason to stubbornly refuse to see what's right in front of you--that the US holds much more influence over the Iraqi government than the people it supposedly represents do. The Iraqi government is a puppet; the hand up its figurative ass is Uncle Sam's.
It follows from this that the US will not want to let Iraqis determine their own fates. This happened before, with Iran under the Shah, who also didn't represent the wishes of his people, and was ousted by a theocratic revolution, the result of which has not been quite as freedomlicious as you seem to think the wake of an imperial colonizer's departure should be.
You gloss over millions of dead and displaced Iraqis, and I'm the heartless one because I won't engage in your utterly baseless fantasies of a free Iraq that just happens to act like a good client state for the US? Your fantasizing has only the most tenuous relevance to reality; the only function it has is to provide an excuse for the bloodbath to continue. You disgust me.
You urge others to take a realistic appraisal of the situation out of one side of your mouth, while handwaving away a million corpses--I'm going to repeat that: handwaving away a million corpses--in your urge to spin utopian fantasies out of the other.
I'd extend your method of analysis to explain how thankful we should be for the Holocaust in depth, but I can't quite bring myself to do so.
Yes, I suppose "me kind" have a thing about responding when someone is wrong on the internet. Especially when someone is grossly, murderously wrong.
Your transparent attempt to head off criticism should be beneath you, though. We left grade school behind some years past, didn't we?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You've given an example of a strong federalized government which exerted oppressive control over its constituents. You've given an example of smaller states which seem to do okay on their own (though they've been federating more in recent years).
But you haven't given a reason as to why that applies to the central government, other than that the central government has made some rules which make you cranky.
I mean, would you prefer the Union to consist of half slave and half free states? Would you prefer that environmental regulations be passed on a state-by-state basis, so that any state which did so would be giving its neighbors all of its industry, resulting in no net change in pollution? These are actual problems, and you'd sweep them all away because you don't like speed limits?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
So what? I ask again--do you believe that the issue of slavery should have been left to the states?
Countries have trade barriers and tariffs between them. The lowering of these barriers as an integral part of globalization means that capital moves much more easily than people do. As trade barriers between states are pretty much nonexistent, this state of affairs is the norm within a country. Externalities like pollution become a problem when the mobility of capital and people are grossly different.
While lowering trade barriers around the world (thus bringing us closer to that one-world system which bothers you so much when it's people who are doing the moving) replicate the problem on a larger scale, it still exists on a smaller one.
Because people's weird religious beliefs in neighboring states don't affect me. Poison being dumped into the river does.
Banning abortion on a state-by-state basis would have the effect of banning it for poor women, while making it slightly more expensive for the wealthy, who'll have to take a trip. (It's like this in El Salvador, where the government employs uterus inspectors. Seriously.)
So an argument could be made that it'd burden the surrounding states, but it's a very tenuous one. So no, if you're arguing from abstract principle rather than a consideration of how a change in policy would actually affect people, there's no real justification for federally regulating abortion.
(Unless, of course, you figure that it's a question of bodily integrity covered under the right to privacy, and that, just as states can't establish official churches, they can't chuck individual rights guaranteed under the feds.)
It would be extremely difficult to ban the sale of a drug in one state and allow it in another; drugs can be smuggled around in a number of disturbingly clever ways. While I think public health decisions like these should be left to the states, I'm doubtful that it'd be effective to do so. (States regulating the sal
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I've been watching this forum and the internet for a while, and I don't contribute often, but I felt this needs to be said.
If you guys are going to seriously say that you're no longer supporting Obama because he compromised on this FISA issue, then you're losing focus on the bigger picture. He did what he has claimed he would do for his entire campaign, which is compromise to get things done.
Furthermore, if your only concern is a tech issue, then you're just as bad as someone who's only voting based on immigration, or gun rights, or any other single issue.
Wake up. You're all smarter than this, or at least you claim to be every day on these forums.